ArticleBMC gastroenterology2022
A descriptive study of high resolution total colonic intracavitary manometry and colonic transit test in the diagnostic efficacy of functional constipation in Chinese patients.
Article in BMC gastroenterology, 2022. 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.
- Pathophysiological mechanisms, diagnostic innovations, and multimodal therapeutic strategies for slow transit constipation.BMC gastroenterology · 2025Review
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis study was to observe the diagnostic efficacy of high resolution total colonic intracavitary manometry (HRCM) vs colonic transit test (CTT) in the assessment of functional constipation (FC) in Chinese patients.
methodsSeventy-nine cases of patients with severe FC who were admitted and received colon resection between July 2016 and July 2019 at the Tianjin Union Medical Center were retrospectively reviewed. Before operation, all patients received CTT at outpatient service, followed by HRCM at ward. The resected tissues were subject to histological observation, which was used to determine the diagnostic efficacy of HRCM vs CTT.
resultsThe accuracy of CTT for the FC diagnosis was 69.6% (55/79), and the false negative ratio was 30.4%. The accuracy of HRCM for the FC diagnosis was 81.0% (64/79), and the false negative ratio was 19.0% (15/79). Twelve patients showed normal characteristics after CTT but abnormal after HRCM. In contrast, only 4 showed normal after HRCM but abnormal after CTT. In addition, among the 79 patients 12 were detected normal by both CTT and HRCM.
conclusionHRCM can be more suitable to assess FC compared with CTT, while CTT is still indispensable for HRCM to diagnose FC.
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.