Observational studyPloS one2020
Comparison of anorectal function measured using wearable digital manometry and a high resolution manometry system.
Observational study in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Technologies for Evaluation of Pelvic Floor Functionality: A Systematic Review.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Pooled it
- Artificial Intelligence in High-resolution Anorectal Manometry: Current Applications and Future Directions.Current gastroenterology reports · 2026Review
- Clinical impact of the triple-layered circular stapler for reducing the anastomotic leakage in rectal cancer surgery: Porcine model and multicenter retrospective cohort analysis.Annals of gastroenterological surgery · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
There is a need for a lower cost manometry system for assessing anorectal function in primary and secondary care settings. We developed an index finger-based system (termed "digital manometry") and tested it in healthy volunteers, patients with chronic constipation, and fecal incontinence. Anorectal pressures were measured in 16 participants with the digital manometry system and a 23-channel high-resolution anorectal manometry system. The results were compared using a Bland-Altman analysis at rest as well as during maximum squeeze and simulated defecation maneuvers. Myoelectric activity of the puborectalis muscle was also quantified simultaneously using the digital manometry system. The limits of agreement between the two methods were -7.1 ± 25.7 mmHg for anal sphincter resting pressure, 0.4 ± 23.0 mmHg for the anal sphincter pressure change during simulated defecation, -37.6 ± 50.9 mmHg for rectal pressure changes during simulated defecation, and -20.6 ± 172.6 mmHg for anal sphincter pressure during the maximum squeeze maneuver. The change in the puborectalis myoelectric activity was proportional to the anal sphincter pressure increment during a maximum squeeze maneuver (slope = 0.6, R2 = 0.4). Digital manometry provided a similar evaluation of anorectal pressures and puborectalis myoelectric activity at an order of magnitude less cost than high-resolution manometry, and with a similar level of patient comfort. Digital Manometry provides a simple, inexpensive, point of service means of assessing anorectal function in patients with chronic constipation and fecal incontinence.
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.