ArticleRadiologia brasileira
Defecography by digital radiography: experience in clinical practice.
Article in Radiologia brasileira. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe objective of this study was to profile patients who undergo defecography, by age and gender, as well as to describe the main imaging and diagnostic findings in this population. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis was a retrospective, descriptive study of 39 patients, conducted between January 2012 and February 2014. The patients were evaluated in terms of age, gender, and diagnosis. They were stratified by age, and continuous variables are expressed as mean ± standard deviation. All possible quantitative defecography variables were evaluated, including rectal evacuation, perineal descent, and measures of the anal canal.
resultsThe majority (95%) of the patients were female. Patient ages ranged from 18 to 82 years (mean age, 52 ± 13 years): 10 patients were under 40 years of age; 18 were between 40 and 60 years of age; and 11 were over 60 years of age. All 39 of the patients evaluated had abnormal radiological findings. The most prevalent diagnoses were rectocele (in 77%) and enterocele (in 38%). Less prevalent diagnoses were vaginal prolapse, uterine prolapse, and Meckel's diverticulum (in 2%, for all).
conclusionAlthough defecography is performed more often in women, both genders can benefit from the test. Defecography can be performed in order to detect complex disorders such as uterine and rectal prolapse, as well as to detect basic clinical conditions such as rectocele or enterocele.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.