ArticleCureus2024
Exploring the Willingness and Understanding of Digital Rectal Examinations in Assessing Anorectal Conditions Among Saudi Patients in the Western Region of Saudi Arabia.
Article in Cureus, 2024. 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.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA digital rectal examination (DRE) is a crucial diagnostic examination used to identify various medical conditions by inserting a finger into the patient's rectum to check for abnormalities. Although clinically significant, DRE can be challenging, especially for first-time patients. Reasons for refusal often include misunderstandings about the examination, fear of the way the test is done, and feelings of embarrassment. This study seeks to explore the views, opinions, and perceptions of individuals in the Western region of Saudi Arabia towards DRE. The objective is to guide interventions and improve healthcare practices related to anorectal conditions in this population.
methodIn this cross-sectional study, we used a validated questionnaire, which was translated from English into Arabic, before distributing it to the target population. The target population included adults older than 18 years residing in the Western region of Saudi Arabia. Although our initial sample size was determined to be 385, we successfully recruited a larger sample of 1,147 participants. Data were statistically analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics software for Windows, version 22 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY).
resultsA total of 1,087 eligible participants completed the study questionnaire. Among them, 480 participants (44.2%) demonstrated a good overall awareness and understanding of DRE, while the majority, 607 (55.8%), had poor awareness. University-educated participants exhibited better awareness, with 363 (47.7%) showing good overall awareness compared to 103 (35.2%) of those with only secondary education, a statistically significant difference. Furthermore, 269 (46.7%) of students had a good awareness of DRE compared to 55 (34.8%) of unemployed participants. Notably, 218 (58.4%) of individuals working or studying in the medical field had a good awareness of DRE, compared to 207 (37.2%) in non-medical fields.
conclusionThe majority of individuals showed limited knowledge regarding DRE. The findings suggest increasing public understanding and raising awareness of and importance of DRE for improving healthcare outcomes.
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.