ArticleFemale pelvic medicine & reconstructive surgery2020
Comparison of Anorectal Manometry Testing in Left Lateral and Lithotomy Positions.
Article in Female pelvic medicine & reconstructive surgery, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Influence of the examination position and distension medium on the rectal sensory test in patients with functional constipation.BMC gastroenterology · 2024Article
- Effect of posture on anorectal manometric measurements in female patients with fecal incontinence and rectoanal intussusception.BMC gastroenterology · 2022Observational
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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesAnorectal manometry (ARM) is typically performed in left lateral position, but many practitioners are more familiar with the lithotomy position. We aimed to evaluate agreement between ARM performed in left lateral and lithotomy positions and patient preference for testing position.
methodsWe performed a prospective comparison study of left lateral versus lithotomy position for women undergoing ARM for the evaluation of fecal incontinence. Women were randomly assigned to undergo testing in either left lateral position first followed by lithotomy position, or vice versa. Women then completed a survey assessing preference of position. We performed Bland-Altman analysis to measure the level of agreement between anorectal measurements obtained in the 2 positions.
resultsTwenty-one women were enrolled (mean age, 65 ± 2.2 years). We noted an acceptable level of agreement between anal pressure values obtained in left lateral versus lithotomy positions: anal resting pressure (mean difference, 0.9 mm Hg; 95% limits of agreement, 30.2 and -28.5) and anal squeeze pressure (mean difference, 1.8 mm Hg; 95% limits of agreement, 54.3 and -50.7). The level of agreement for sensory values was outside the predetermined clinical acceptability range. Most women (17/21 [81%]) reported a "good" or "very good" experience in both positions.
conclusionsAnorectal manometry testing in the 2 positions can be used interchangeably for anal resting and squeeze pressures, but not for anorectal sensation. This modification can be introduced into clinical practice to accommodate the preference of women and practitioners who favor lithotomy position.
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.