ArticleBMC women's health2021
Perianal ultrasound (PAUS): visualization of sphincter muscles and comparison with digital-rectal examination (DRE) in females.
Article in BMC women's health, 2021. 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Integrating Intestinal Ultrasound in the Personalized Management of IBD.Journal of personalized medicine · 2026Review
- Obstetric anal sphincter injuries (OASIS): using transperineal ultrasound (TPUS) for detecting, visualizing and monitoring the healing process.BMC women's health · 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
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of this study was to determine the reproducibility and tolerance of perianal ultrasound (PAUS) and detect differences in sphincter muscles between various measuring positions and different maneuvers. PAUS was compared to digital-rectal examination (DRE) to see if sphincter contraction is visible and gradable in ultrasound volumes.
methodsFifty women underwent a medical history, DRU and PAUS by two uro-gynecologists in a prospective trial. PAUS volumes were measured via different parameters in different maneuvers. Examiners' DRE impressions of sphincter tone were scaled with the DRESS-score. All patients completed a questionnaire.
resultsThirty-five patients with complete PAUS and DRE were included in the study. Fifteen patients were excluded due to poor ultrasound volume quality or sphincter defects. Comparison of sphincter muscle thickness at different positions in PAUS showed significant differences between 6 and 12 o'clock positions (12 > 6 o'clock) and diameters (horizontal > vertical). No difference was found between the examiners. In comparison of rest and contraction only the vertical diameter changed. There was a negative but not significant correlation between PAUS measurements and DRESS-scores. Twenty-six patients completed the questionnaire that revealed women preferred PAUS over DRE.
conclusionPAUS is a reproducible and good tool to visualize the anal canal. It is comfortable for patients and easily handled by examiners. Sphincter muscle contraction is iso-volumetric. Vertical diameter changes during contraction leading the anal canal change its shape to oval due to external influence. PAUS is the ideal additional tool to visualize relevant structures that are palpable on DRE.
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.