ArticleJournal of pediatric gastroenterology and nutrition2026
Interrater reliability in pediatric high-resolution anorectal manometry recordings.
Article in Journal of pediatric gastroenterology and nutrition, 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
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesHigh-resolution anorectal manometry (HR-ARM) is a diagnostic test assessing anorectal neuromuscular function in children with constipation and/or fecal incontinence. Interrater reliability of HR-ARM in children has not been previously studied. The aim of this study was to assess the interrater reliability of pediatric HR-ARM studies.
methodsTen pediatric gastroenterologists specialized in neurogastroenterology and motility analyzed ten deidentified pediatric HR-ARM studies using dedicated analysis software (Solar GI HRM v9.1, MMS, Enschede, the Netherlands). Anal canal resting pressure, squeeze pressure and duration, presence of the rectoanal inhibitory reflex (RAIR), bear down maneuver (normal/abnormal), and final interpretation of the study (normal/abnormal) were evaluated. Fleiss' Kappa (κ) and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) were used for categorical and continuous data, respectively.
resultsInterrater reliability was excellent for resting pressure (ICC 0.97, 95% confidence interval [CI 0.93-0.99), squeeze pressure (ICC 0.97, 95% CI 0.94-0.99), and squeeze duration (ICC 0.93, 95% CI 0.85-0.98). A fair interrater agreement for the RAIR (κ = 0.35) was seen, and a moderate interrater agreement was seen for interpretation of the bear down maneuver and the final interpretation of the study either being normal or abnormal (κ = 0.50 and κ = 0.43, respectively).
conclusionsThis study demonstrated excellent interrater reliability in assessing HR-ARM anal canal resting pressure, squeeze pressure, and squeeze duration and suboptimal reliability in interpreting the detection of a RAIR and bear down maneuver. These findings highlight the need for standardization of HR-ARM protocols and interpretation criteria in children.
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.