ArticleAbdominal radiology (New York)2023
Diagnostic performance of dynamic MR defecography in assessment of dyssynergic defecation.
Article in Abdominal radiology (New York), 2023. 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.
- Role of MRI radiomics in deep learning-based prediction of intestinal diseases.International journal of colorectal disease · 2026Review
- Role of magnetic resonance defecography in the assessment of obstructed defecation syndrome.World journal of radiology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo assess diagnostic performance of MR defecographic findings in diagnosis of dyssynergic defecation (DD).
methodsThis retrospective study included 46 patients with chronic constipation who met the Rome IV criteria for diagnosis of present or absent DD and underwent MRI between Jan 2015 and June 2020. Patients were divided into DD group (n = 24) and non-DD group (n = 22). Nine parameters were analyzed by two radiologists: anorectal angle (ARA) and M line at rest, defecation, and change between 2 phases; anal canal width; prominent puborectalis muscle; abnormal evacuation. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were plotted to extract the optimal cut-offs and area under the curve (AUC). Multivariate analysis was performed.
resultsSeven findings showed statistically significant difference between DD and non-DD groups. M line at defecation had highest odds ratio, followed by ARA change, ARA at defecation, M line change, prominent puborectalis muscle, abnormal evacuation and anal canal width, respectively. ARA change and prominent puborectalis muscle had highest specificity (95.5% and 100%, respectively). The optimal cut-offs of ARA at defecation, ARA change, M line at defecation, M line change and anal canal width were 122°, 1.5°, 3.25 cm, 1.9 cm and 8.5 mm, respectively. Multivariate logistic regression revealed two significant findings in differentiating between DD and non-DD, including M line at defecation (OR 23.31, 95% CI 3.10-175.32) and ARA at defecation (OR 13.63, 95% CI 1.94-95.53) with sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV and AUC of 79.2%, 95.5%, 95%, 80.8% and 0.87(95% CI 0.78-0.97), respectively.
conclusionMR defecography has high diagnostic performance in diagnosis of DD. Although M line and ARA at defecation are two significant findings on multivariate analysis, ARA change less than 1.5 degrees and prominent puborectalis muscle have good specificity in DD diagnosis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
37542178What 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.