ArticleCureus2023
Digital Rectal Examination: Perspectives on Current Attitudes, Enablers, and Barriers to Its Performance by Doctors-in-Training.
Article in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Predicting clinically significant prostate cancer with or without digital rectal exam and MRI data using ClarityDX Prostate models.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Article
- Can Digital Rectal Examination Identify the Subtype of Dyssynergic Disorders as Well as High Resolution Anorectal Manometry?JGH open : an open access journal of gastroenterology and hepatology · 2025Article
- Article
- The Importance of Digital Rectal Examination in Identifying Early-Onset Rectal Malignancies.Cureus · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Digital rectal examination (DRE) is a valuable diagnostic tool for diagnosing multiple conditions, but its use has declined in practice. This study sought to provide perspectives on current attitudes, enablers, and barriers to performing DRE for doctors-in-training (DiTs) and explore strategies to improve and facilitate consistent, efficient, and effective execution of DRE. Methodology Self-reported DRE practice among DiTs (n = 1,652) across three metropolitan health service regions in Western Australia was surveyed using a de-identified multiple-response ranking, dichotomous quantitative and qualitative survey. Data were analyzed using SPSS version 27 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). Results A total of 452 (27%) DiTs responded to the survey, with an even distribution of key demographics between regions and specialties. The median post-graduate year was 2. Half of DiTs reported being comfortable with performing DRE. Most had training in medical school (71%), while 9.7% had no training in DRE. Chaperone availability, perceived invasiveness, and lack of confidence were key barriers; key enablers were formal training and senior colleague/departmental support. The multivariate logistic regression showed that DiTs who reported being comfortable in performing DRE were significantly and independently associated with being a high-volume practitioner (p < 0.001), confident in diagnosing benign (p < 0.001) or malignant pathology (p < 0.001), perceived adequate DRE training (p < 0.001), prior formal DRE training (p = 0.007), and surgical subspeciality interest (p = 0.030). Conclusions Low levels of confidence and comfort in the performance of DRE among DiTs have resulted in the underutilization of a critical diagnostic tool. Future curriculum and departmental clinical practice interventions should address barriers while promoting enablers.
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.