ArticleCureus2023
Comparison of Dynamic Magnetic Resonance Defecography With Clinical Examination in Diagnosing Pelvic Floor Dysfunction: An Observational Study.
Article in Cureus, 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Rare Case of Severe Pelvic Organ Prolapse with Massive Perineal Hernia in a Nulliparous Woman: A Case Report and Literature Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPelvic floor dysfunction (PFD) is frequently reported in both sexes. Dynamic magnetic resonance defecography (DMRD) is the preferred modality, mainly due to its superiority and complementary role in clinical examination. However, studies from the perspective of Indian patients are scarce and mostly restricted to females. Thus, we assessed the diagnostic performance of DMRD in patients with PFD and correlated the findings with those on clinical examination. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis prospective, observational study involved 57 adult patients of either sex, presenting with pelvic floor symptoms (PFS) and diagnosed with PFD. Initially, the patients underwent clinical examination, and diagnosis was recorded. Subsequently, the patients were subjected to DMRD. The findings were correlated with the Pearson "r" correlation coefficient.
resultsA significantly greater proportion of patients had involvement of multiple compartments (36 vs. 12, p<0.001), cystocele (23 vs. 8, p=0.002), and rectal prolapse (25 vs. 14, p=0.030) on DMRD than clinical examination, while there was no significant difference regarding uterine prolapse (p=0.789). Grading of cystocele and rectal prolapse as well as diagnosis of enterocele/peritoneocele, rectocele, and intussusception could be done only with DMRD. DMRD had a strong and significant correlation with clinical examination regarding cystocele (r=0.943, p=0.003), uterine prolapse (r=0.972, p=0.001), and rectal prolapse (r=0.951, p=0.001).
conclusionsDMRD demonstrated significantly better performance in the diagnosis of multiple compartment involvement, cystocele, and rectal prolapse. DMRD and clinical examination were significantly correlated regarding the diagnosis of cystocele, uterine prolapse, and rectal prolapse. Thus, DMRD provides information, in addition to the clinical examination, and should be used in symptomatic patients.
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.