Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29854711›Full record

ArticleAnnals of surgical treatment and research2018

Assessment of functional defecation disorders using anorectal manometry.

Moo-Kyung Seong

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of surgical treatment and research, 2018. 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 21% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Moo-Kyung SeongDepartment of Surgery, Konkuk University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2284-9449
Konkuk University · KR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe aim was to evaluate the discriminating accuracy of anorectal manometry (ARM) between nonconstipated (NC) subjects and functionally constipated (FC) subjects, and between FC subjects with and without functional defecation disorder (FDD).

methodsAmong female patients who visited anorectal physiology unit, those who could be grouped to following categories were included; FC group with FDD (+FDD subgroup), or without FDD (-FDD subgroup) and NC group. ARM was performed and interpreted not only with absolute pressure values, but also pattern classification and quantification of pressure changes in the rectum and anus during attempted defecation.

resultsThere were 76 subjects in NC group and 75 in FC group. Among FC group, 63 subjects were in -FDD subgroup and 12 in +FDD subgroup. In pattern classification of pressure changes, type 0, as 'normal' response, was only slightly more prevalent in NC group than in FC group. When all 'abnormal' types (types 1-5) were considered together as positive findings, the sensitivity and specificity of pattern classification in diagnosing FC among all subjects were 89.3% and 22.7%. Those values in diagnosing FDD among FC group were 91.7% and 11.1%. Manometric defecation index (MDI) as a quantification parameter was significantly different between -FDD and +FDD subgroups. Other conventional absolute pressures were mostly comparable between the groups.

conclusionAmong all parameters of ARM, MDI was useful to diagnose FDD in FC patients. Other parameters including the pattern classification were questionable in their ability to diagnose FDD.

Indexed as

ConstipationManometry

Identifiers

PMID29854711
PMCPMC5976574
OpenAlexW2805056997

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.