ReviewRadiologie (Heidelberg, Germany)2023
[Imaging of the pelvic floor (MR defecography) : The surgeon's perspective].
Review in Radiologie (Heidelberg, Germany), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- [Pelvic floor reconstruction-An interdisciplinary overview].Chirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2026Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMagnetic resonance defecography (MRD) plays a central role in diagnosing pelvic floor functional disorders by visualizing the entire pelvic floor along with pelvic organs and providing functional assessment of the defecation process. A shared understanding between radiology and surgery regarding indications and interpretation of findings is crucial for optimal utilization of MRD.
objectivesThis review aims to explain the indications for MRD from a surgical perspective and elucidate the significance of radiological findings for treatment. It intends to clarify for which symptoms MRD is appropriate and which criteria should be followed for standardized results. This is prerequisite to develop interdisciplinary therapeutic approaches. MATERIALS AND
methodsA comprehensive literature search was conducted, including current consensus guidelines.
resultsMRD can provide relevant findings in the diagnosis of fecal incontinence and obstructed defecation syndrome, particularly in cases of pelvic floor descent, enterocele, intussusception, and pelvic floor dyssynergia. However, rectocele findings in MRD should be interpreted with caution in order to avoid overdiagnosis.
conclusionMRD findings should never be considered in isolation but rather in conjunction with patient history, clinical examination, and symptomatology since morphology and functional complaints may not always correlate, and there is wide variance of normal values. Interdisciplinary interpretation of MRD results involving radiology, surgery, gynecology, and urology, preferably in the context of pelvic floor conferences, is recommended.
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.