ArticleGastroenterology report2021
Is the transperineal ultrasonography approach effective for the diagnosis of rectocele?
Article in Gastroenterology report, 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Reproducibility of the anorectal angle with transperineal ultrasound.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2023Article
- The Role of Transperineal Ultrasound for the Assessment of the Anorectal Angle and Its Relationship with Levator Ani Muscle Avulsion.Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.) · 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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTransperineal ultrasonography has been used as a diagnostic imaging modality for rectocele for many years. However, the consistency of ultrasonography and defecography in evaluating the severity of rectocele was not satisfactory. This study aimed to evaluate the agreement in the measurement of rectocele parameters between the two methods in different positions and provide clinical implications for the diagnosis of rectocele.
methodsIn this pilot study, participants were recruited in an outpatient clinic of a tertiary hospital between December 2017 and December 2019. All participants separately underwent defecation proctography at sitting and squatting positions, and undertook transperineal ultrasonography at left lateral, sitting, and squatting positions. The consistency of ultrasonography and defecography was evaluated.
resultsThirty female volunteers with rectocele were included in this study. The degree of anorectal angle was significantly larger at rest and during contraction, maximal Valsalva, and evacuation; the depth of the rectocele was significantly deeper during maximal Valsalva and evacuation; and the length of the perineum descending was significantly longer during contraction and maximal Valsalva in using squatting position compared to the sitting position when performing the defecation proctography. The degree of anorectal angle, the depth of rectocele, the area of levator hiatus, and the volume of the rectocele were significantly different in using squatting, sitting, and left lateral positions when performing the transperineal ultrasonography. Bland-Altman semi-quantitative plots showed good consistency in the measurement of the anorectal angle and the depth of the rectocele between proctography and ultrasonography in both sitting and squatting positions.
conclusionsThe findings of our study may be considered as the preliminary evidence to support the use of transperineal ultrasonography with sitting and squatting positions as the imaging test of choice for evaluating patients with rectocele.
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.