SynthesisJournal of ultrasound2023
Diagnostic capabilities of transperineal ultrasound (TPUS) to evaluate anal sphincter defect post obstetric anal sphincter injury (OASIS)? A systematic review.
Synthesis in Journal of ultrasound, 2023. 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.
- IUGA International Guidelines on Obstetric Anal Sphincter Injuries.International urogynecology journal · 2026Article
- Obstetric Anal Sphincter Injuries: A Urogynecologic Perspective on Detection and Diagnosis.International urogynecology journal · 2025Review
- Three-Dimensional Transperineal Ultrasound Guiding Early Secondary Repair of Obstetric Anal Sphincter Injury in an Incontinent Patient without Suture Dehiscence.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionEndoanal ultrasound (3D-EAUS) is the gold standard imaging investigation for evaluating the anal sphincter; unfortunately, it is not universally available in most obstetric units. This study aims to appraise the ability of transperineal ultrasound (TPUS) compared with 3D-EAUS as the gold standard to identify anal sphincter defects after primary repair of OASIS.
methodsA systematic search of major databases to identify diagnostic accuracy of 3D-TPUS in evaluating anal sphincter defects. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were designed for this systematic review. The risk of bias and applicability concerns were assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool. Our eligibility criteria are patients with a history of primary repair of anal sphincter injuries (OASIS). They were followed up after the primary repair to detect the anal sphincter defect using 3D-TPUS vs. 3D-EAUS as a gold standard.
resultsTwo eligible observational studies were included and assessed for risk of bias using the QUADAS-2 tool and showed a low risk of bias and a low risk of concerns. 3D-TPUS had various sensitivity to detect external anal sphincter defects in two studies; meanwhile, the specificity was around 67-70%. For detecting the internal anal sphincter defects, 3D-TPUS had low sensitivity but high specificity (93-94%).
conclusion3D-TPUS had various sensitivity to detect external anal sphincter defects and low sensitivity to detect internal anal sphincter defects. On the other hand, 3D-TPUS had low specificity for detecting external anal sphincter defects and high specificity for detecting internal anal sphincter defects.
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.