ArticleTechniques in coloproctology2020
Magnetic imaging defecography results are comparable to high-resolution manometry and conventional X-ray defecography in the assessment of functional pelvic floor disorders.
Article in Techniques in coloproctology, 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- 2022 Seoul Consensus on Clinical Practice Guidelines for Functional Constipation.Journal of neurogastroenterology and motility · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundX-ray defecography or magnetic resonance defecography (MRD) and high-resolution anorectal manometry (HR-ARM) are essential for the diagnosis of pelvic floor disorders (PFD). However, there is only scarce information available about the accuracy of MRD in the functional assessment of the pelvic floor. The aim of this study was to examine the accuracy of MRD in the diagnosis of pelvic floor disorders by examining the intra-test agreement with x-ray defecography and HR-ARM in patients with PFD.
methodsThe study population included adults referred to our institution in January 2018-February 2020 for MRD as part of their evaluation of PFD. The MRD results were compared with X-ray defecography and HR-ARM.
resultsForty-two patients were included in the study (36 female, 86%, mean age 56.9 years ± 15.8, range 19-86 years). When compared to X-ray defecography, the sensitivity of MRD for the evaluation of normal rest and squeeze pressures was high (0.83 and 1, respectively). High sensitivity rates were observed for the detection of pelvic organ prolapse and pelvic floor dyssynergia (0.84-1). When compared to HR-ARM, the sensitivity of MRD for the evaluation of squeeze and dyssynergia was very good (0.92and 1, respectively), and good for the evaluation of rest pressure (0.6). Inter-test agreement was high (0.5, 0.6, 0.6 for rest, squeeze and dyssynergia). Excellent rates of sensitivity as well as almost perfect intra-test agreement was found between abnormal balloon expulsion test and the diagnosis of dyssynergia and pelvic organ prolapse on MRD (1, 0.81).
conclusionsThis study demonstrated substantial diagnostic agreement between HR-ARM and MRD in the diagnosis of pathological etiologies for functional pelvic floor disorders, mainly obstructed defecation syndrome.
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.