ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2024
A Handheld Ultrasound Device Can Predict Constipation with Rectal Fecal Retention in a Palliative Care Setting.
Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. 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.
- Point-of-care ultrasound diagnostic accuracy for fecal impaction in the emergency department: a prospective study.Internal and emergency medicine · 2026Trial
- Pocket-sized hand-held ultrasound for evaluating pediatric functional constipation by both novice and expert clinicians.Frontiers in pediatrics · 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
26 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Although handheld ultrasound devices (HUDs) are commonplace, their ability to diagnose fecal retention (FR) remains unclear. This prospective observational study examined HUDs' usefulness in diagnosing FR in patients with constipation in a palliative care setting. Between 10 December 2020 and 30 June 2022, we compared rectal ultrasonographic findings obtained using HUDs with clinical manifestations in 64 males and 70 females (48%, 52%, 68 ± 11 years old) with constipation who had undergone computed tomography (CT). FR was diagnosed using a HUD and compared with CT and digital rectal examination (DRE) results. In total, 42 (31%), 42 (31%), and 41 (31%) patients were diagnosed using HUDs, CT, and DRE, respectively. Thirty-nine (93%) patients in the CT group were also diagnosed with FR using HUDs. A total of 89 of 92 patients with a negative CT diagnosis also had a negative HUD diagnosis. Among the 41 patients in the DRE group, 37 were also diagnosed with FR using HUDs. Among 93 patients with a negative DRE diagnosis, 86 had a negative HUD diagnosis. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of HUDs for CT were 93%, 97%, 93%, and 97%, respectively. Those of HUDs for DRE were 88%, 94%, 86%, and 95%, respectively. The concordance rates for FR diagnosis were 128/134 for CT and HUDs and 123/134 for DRE and HUDs. HUD was useful for diagnosing FR in this setting. HUDs could provide valuable support for appropriate treatment selection. Developing a constipation treatment algorithm based on rectal ultrasonographic findings is warranted in the future.
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.