Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35201369›Full record

ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2022

Rectocele: victim of availability bias? Results of a Belgian survey of colorectal and gynecological surgeons.

Sylvie Van den Broeck, Yves Jacquemyn, Guy Hubens, Heiko De Schepper, Alexandra Vermandel, Niels Komen

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in International urogynecology journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 25% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Sylvie Van den BroeckDepartment of Abdominal, Pediatric and Reconstructive Surgery, Antwerp University Hospital, Drie Eikenstraat 566, 2650, Edegem, Belgium. sylvie.vandenbroeck@uza.be.ORCID 0000-0003-1323-7376
Yves JacquemynAntwerp ReSURG, Anatomy and Research Centre (ASTARC), Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Antwerp, 2610, Antwerp, Belgium.
Guy HubensDepartment of Abdominal, Pediatric and Reconstructive Surgery, Antwerp University Hospital, Drie Eikenstraat 566, 2650, Edegem, Belgium.
Heiko De SchepperDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Antwerp University Hospital, 2650, Edegem, Belgium.
Alexandra VermandelDepartment of Rehabilitation Sciences and Physiotherapy, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Antwerp, 2610, Antwerp, Belgium.
Niels KomenDepartment of Abdominal, Pediatric and Reconstructive Surgery, Antwerp University Hospital, Drie Eikenstraat 566, 2650, Edegem, Belgium.
University of Antwerp · BEAntwerp University Hospital · BE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introduction and hypothesisWomen with a symptomatic rectocele may undergo different trajectories depending on the specialty consulted. This survey aims to evaluate potential differences between colorectal surgeons and gynecologists concerning the management of a rectocele.

methodsA web-based survey was sent to abdominal surgeons (CS group) and gynecologists (G group) asking about their perceived definition, diagnostic workup, multidisciplinary discussion (MDT) and surgical treatment of rectoceles. The answers of both groups were analyzed with the chi-square test or Fisher's exact test at p < 0.050.

resultsA rectocele was defined as a prolapse of the posterior vaginal wall by 78% of the G and 41% of the CS group. All gynecologists and 49% of the CS group evaluated a rectocele clinically in dorsal decubitus, with 91% of gynecologists using a speculum and 65% using the Pelvic Organ Prolapse-Quantification (POP-Q) scoring system, compared to < 1/3 of colorectal surgeons. A digital rectal examination was performed by 90% of the CS group and 57% of the G group. A transvaginal ultrasound was only used by the G group, while anal manometry was opted for by the CS group (65%) and minimally by the G group (14%). In the G group, a posterior repair was the preferred surgical technique (78%), whereas 63% of the CS group preferred a rectopexy. Multidisciplinary discussions (MDT) were mostly organized ad hoc.

conclusionsAn availability bias is seen in different aspects of rectocele evaluation and treatment. Colorectal surgeons and gynecologists are acting based on their training and experience. Motivation for pelvic floor MDT starts with creating awareness of the availability bias.

Indexed as

Colorectal NeoplasmsSurgeonsBelgiumFemaleHumansRectoceleSurgical MeshMultidisciplinary discussionPosterior repairRectoceleVentral mesh rectopexy

Identifiers

PMID35201369
OpenAlexW4213431417

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.