ArticleIndian journal of gastroenterology : official journal of the Indian Society of Gastroenterology2026
High-resolution anorectal manometry profile in patients with chronic constipation versus control.
Article in Indian journal of gastroenterology : official journal of the Indian Society of Gastroenterology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsStudies comparing chronic constipation (CC) and asymptomatic subjects are lacking in our population. This study aimed to compare the high-resolution anorectal manometry (HRAM) profiles of patients with CC and healthy volunteers (HV), as well as patients with functional defecation disorders (FDD) and those without in the constipation group.
methodsThis retrospective comparative study included patients with CC who underwent HRAM and a balloon expulsion test (BET). As historical controls, healthy volunteers were recruited. If both ARM and BET were abnormal, FDD was diagnosed using ROME-IV criteria.
resultsTotal 120 CC and 60 HV as controls were included. Maximum anal squeeze pressure (205 ± 62 vs. 170 ± 35 mmHg, p = 0.001), rectal sensations (1st sensation 49 vs. 40 ml, p = 0.024), desire to defecate (125 vs. 105 ml, p = 0.011) and maximum tolerable volume 171 vs. 150 ml, p = 0.018) were found to be significantly higher in CC patients as compared to controls. Median anal relaxation (15.5% [- 8.0 to 37.5] vs. 58.0% [34.0-77.0], p = 0.001), median defecation index (1.27 [0.88-1.74] vs. 2.00 [1.12-3.49], p = 0.001) and median recto-anal pressure gradient (17.50 [- 10.25 to 39.0] vs. 39.50 [7.50-69.0], p = 0.001) were significantly lower in CC patients. BET was not significant between CC and healthy volunteers (53% vs. 45%, p = 0.37). FDD was found in 57.5% of CC patients. Patients with FDD had higher anal residual pressure (95 ± 26 vs. 45 ± 21 mmHg, p = 0.001) and lower recto-anal pressure gradients than those without FDD (- 4.5 vs. 36 mmHg, p = 0.001). Rectal sensations were comparable in both FDD and non-FDD groups.
conclusionThe clinical and manometric profiles of CC and HV patients differed significantly. FDD and rectal hyposensitivity were more common in those with CC. Type-1 recto-anal dyssynergia was the most common FDD sub-type.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40921932What 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.