ArticleJournal of the anus, rectum and colon2024
Diagnostic Ability of Ultrasonography Compared with Computed Tomography for Assessing Rectal Feces.
Article in Journal of the anus, rectum and colon, 2024. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Intestinal Ultrasound Adds Diagnostic Value and Safety to a Dietitian-Led Clinic for Disorders of Gut-Brain Interaction.JGH open : an open access journal of gastroenterology and hepatology · 2026Article
- Expert Position Statement: Defining the Role of Intestinal Ultrasound in Assessing Constipation and Faecal Loading.Alimentary pharmacology & therapeutics · 2025Article
- Elobixibat Improves Stool/Gas Distribution and Fecal Bile Acids in Older Adults With Chronic Constipation.JGH open : an open access journal of gastroenterology and hepatology · 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
12 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Chronic constipation is a common gastrointestinal disorder, and management is crucial. Computed tomography (CT) is useful for evaluating rectal fecal mass but limited owing to radiation exposure, cost, and inaccessibility at certain facilities. Ultrasonography (US) avoids these pitfalls, but it is unknown whether it accurately assesses rectal feces. In this study, we evaluated the diagnostic performance of US compared with CT as the gold standard for assessing rectal feces. Methods: We prospectively evaluated rectal fecal mass retention using US performed within 1 h of CT to assess the degree of agreement between methodologies. Rectal stool findings were evaluated on three levels: no stool (R1), presence of stool (R2), and hard stool filling (R3). Results: The sample included 100 patients (55 men, 45 women), of whom 47 were constipated. The kappa coefficients for rectal content detection were excellent between US and CT ( Conclusions: CT and US showed high agreement in evaluating rectal fecal mass retention, indicating that US can substitute CT.
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.