ArticleAnnals of translational medicine2022
Systematic review of rectal foreign bodies in older men: humanistic care and a novel challenge for society.
Article in Annals of translational medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Management of Transanal Recto-Anal Foreign Body in a School-Aged Child: A Report of a Rare Case.Cureus · 2024Article
- A case of a stuck mesh in the rectum after pelvic surgery.DEN open · 2024Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: In recent years, rectal foreign bodies have become a common proctological emergency in the male population, especially older Chinese men, often requiring surgical intervention due to associated complications. This review aimed to describe the epidemiology and clinical characteristics of rectal foreign bodies in older men and examine the possible challenges presented by the condition to clinicians and society. Methods: A comprehensive search was conducted in English-language databases and Chinese databases from January 2000 to December 2020. Studies concerning rectal foreign bodies were considered for this review if they reported the reason for a foreign body being in the rectum and related treatment measures. Contemporaneous rectal foreign bodies case data from General Surgery Department of Tangdu Hospital were also analyzed. According to differences in ethnicity, the older male patients were divided into a Chinese group and a non-Chinese group, and the parameters of the two groups were analyzed using statistical methods. Results: A total of 159 studies were retrieved in an initial database search using "rectal foreign body" as the search term. These included 86 Chinese studies and 73 English-language studies. Collectively, these studies included 582 older male patients, 276 of whom were Chinese, and 307 who were non-Chinese. According to their source, the rectal foreign bodies were classified into 3 categories. The most common reason for a foreign body in the rectum was insertion for erotic purposes, with everyday articles accounting for most foreign body types. Sexual articles were mainly found to have been used in the pursuit of pleasure. There were no significant differences in foreign body sources, sizes, types, treatment selections, and outcomes between the two groups. Discussion: Emergency hospital visits by older men with rectal foreign bodies due to erotic and sexual needs and practices are increasing. Although the sources, sizes, and types of foreign bodies were different, and patients recovered well after active and appropriate clinical treatment, the sexual needs of older men are a social issue that requires attention. Acknowledging and dealing with sexual issues is a multidimensional task that requires a collaborative effort to ensure a more humanistic approach to older patients.
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.