ArticleJournal of neurogastroenterology and motility2018
Evaluation of 153 Asymptomatic Subjects Using the Anopress Portable Anal Manometry Device.
Article in Journal of neurogastroenterology and motility, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review of the indications, methods, and clinical utility of anorectal manometry and the rectal balloon expulsion test.Neurogastroenterology and motility · 2022Review
- Faecal incontinence in adults.Nature reviews. Disease primers · 2022Review
- The London Classification: Improving Characterization and Classification of Anorectal Function with Anorectal Manometry.Current gastroenterology reports · 2020Review
- Comparison between high-resolution water-perfused anorectal manometry and THDColorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland · 2020Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
aimsThe Anopress device is a new portable manometry system. The aim of this study is to formulate normative data using this new device by recording the anorectal function of asymptomatic subjects. Patient comfort was also assessed.
methodsAnorectal function was assessed in asymptomatic volunteers using the Anopress. All volunteers were examined in a standardized way in accordance with the study protocol. Normative values for the Anopress were obtained from the recorded data and patient comfort was assessed using a visual analogue scale.
resultsWe recruited 153 healthy volunteers. Eighty were female (23 parous; median age 39.5 [interquartile range {IQR}, 28.75-53.00]) and 73 were male (median age 40.5 [IQR, 29.00-52.25]). For the female cohort, the following normal range (2.5-97.5 percentile) values were recorded across the whole anal canal: resting pressure 40.0-103.0 mmHg; squeeze increment 35.0-140.6 mmHg; endurance 1.3-9.0 seconds; involuntary squeeze 41.1-120.8 mmHg; and strain pressure 22.1-77.9 mmHg. Similarly, the following male normal range (2.5-97.5 percentile) values were recorded across the whole anal canal: resting pressure 38.3-99.6 mmHg; squeeze increment 42.5-154.8 mmHg; involuntary squeeze 40.0-123.6 mmHg; endurance 2.0-10.0 seconds; and strain pressure 11.0-72.1 mmHg. The median visual analogue scale scores for discomfort during the measurement was 0.0 (IQR, 0.00-0.00).
conclusionsNormative values for the Anopress device have been calculated by this study. The Anopress appears to be a safe and well tolerated way of measuring pressures from the entire anal canal. Further comparisons with other standard and commonly used manometry tests are, however, required to verify its reliability.
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.