ArticleBMC research notes2018
Duration taken for the anal sphincter pressures to stabilize prior to anorectal manometry.
Article in BMC research notes, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Optimizing the Utility of Anorectal Manometry for Diagnosis and Therapy: A Roundtable Review and Recommendations.Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association · 2023Review
- Optimizing techniques for measuring anal resting and squeeze pressures with high-resolution manometry.Neurogastroenterology and motility · 2022Article
- Review of the indications, methods, and clinical utility of anorectal manometry and the rectal balloon expulsion test.Neurogastroenterology and motility · 2022Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesAnorectal manometry (ARM) is an integral part of evaluating the anal sphincter function. The current recommendation of waiting for 5 min (lead-in-time) prior to beginning the recording has no evidence. A prolonged procedure may reduce patient compliance.
resultsWe analyzed data from 100 consecutive patients who underwent 3-dimensional ARM at a single center. Their pressure studies were analyzed in consecutive 10-s segments, beginning from the time of insertion of the probe into the anal canal. We defined stabilization of the pressure as the absence of a pressure difference among two consecutive 10-s segments. The study population had 31 males. Their mean age was 33.0 years (SD-14.4). The mean time for the pressure to stabilize was 84.2 s (SD-29.5), range 17.2-203.7 s, 95th percentile 136.2 s. Eleven and one participant(s) took longer than 120 and 150 s for the pressure to stabilize, respectively. There was no correlation of sex (Mann-Whitney U test, p = 0.89) and the time to pressure stabilization. Age and the time to stabilize (Spearman rho - 0.246, p = 0.017) showed a weak negative correlation. A lead-in-time of 5 min, as recommended by present guidelines may be unnecessary. Waiting for 150 s/2½ min may be sufficient and will minimize the procedure duration.
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.