ReviewClinics in colon and rectal surgery2017
Methods of Evaluation of Anorectal Causes of Obstructed Defecation.
Review in Clinics in colon and rectal surgery, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy and safety of six Chinese patent medicines for elderly functional constipation: a network meta-analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Sensation of Incomplete Evacuation in Patients With Fecal Incontinence: A Cross-Sectional Study of a Tertiary Referral Cohort.Neurogastroenterology and motility · 2026Article
- IUGA Opinion Paper on Obstructed Defecation: Management of Clinical and Proctographic Rectoceles.International urogynecology journal · 2026Review
- Clinical relevance of transperineal ultrasound compared with anorectal manometry for the evaluation of female patients with obstructive defecation syndrome.BMC gastroenterology · 2025Article
- Evaluation of 153 Asymptomatic Subjects Using the Anopress Portable Anal Manometry Device.Journal of neurogastroenterology and motility · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Obstructed defecation is a complex disorder that results in impaired propagation of stool from the rectum. It is one of the major subtypes of functional constipation and can be secondary to either functional or anatomic etiologies. Patients with obstructed defecation typically present with symptoms of abdominal discomfort, a sensation of incomplete evacuation and rectal obstruction, passage of hard stools, the need for rectal or vaginal digitation, excessive straining, and reduced stool frequency. Evaluation of obstructed defecation is multimodal, starting with a thorough history and physical examination with focus on the abdominal, perineal, and rectal examination. Additional modalities to elicit the diagnosis of obstructed defecation include proctoscopy, colonic transit time studies, anorectal manometry, a rectal balloon expulsion test, defecography, electromyography, and ultrasound. The results from these studies should be taken in the context of each patient's clinical situation, as there is no single criterion standard for the diagnosis of obstructed defecation. Surgery is typically a last resort for these patients and the majority of patients will have good symptomatic management with diet and lifestyle changes. Patients who are found to have functional mechanisms behind their obstructed defecation also benefit from pelvic floor exercises and biofeedback therapy.
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.