ArticleJournal of neurogastroenterology and motility2026
Real‑world Application of the International Anorectal Physiology Working Group Standardized Protocol and London Classification: A Multi‑country Cross‑sectional Survey of Anorectal Manometry Practice in Asia.
Article in Journal of neurogastroenterology and motility, 2026. 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.
- Artificial Intelligence in High-resolution Anorectal Manometry: Current Applications and Future Directions.Current gastroenterology reports · 2026Review
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
Background/Aims: : The International Anorectal Physiology Working Group (IAPWG) has proposed a standardized protocol and the London classification to enhance the consistency and diagnostic accuracy of anorectal manometry (ARM). However, real-world adoption in Asian countries has not been systematically assessed. This study aims to evaluate current ARM practices and adherence to the IAPWG protocol across Asian centers. Methods: : A cross-sectional, 50-item web-based survey was distributed to gastroenterologists and motility specialists practicing in Asian countries. Results: : Thirty-one centers from 8 countries responded (20 in Korea, 3 in Japan, 2 in Taiwan, 1 in China, and 7 in other countries). High-resolution ARM was used in 80.6% of centers, primarily with solid-state catheters. While all centers performed rest and short squeeze maneuvers, only 58.1% conducted all maneuvers recommended by the IAPWG protocol. Considerable variation was observed in test methodology and interpretation, including definitions of resting pressure, squeeze duration, push maneuver repetition, and rectal balloon volume for rectoanal inhibitory reflex. For balloon expulsion and rectal sensory testing, centers differed in patient positioning, balloon type, inflation methods, and threshold definitions. Only 38.7% of centers reported having institutional normative values for test interpretation, and 64.5% applied the London classification. Conclusions: : Across Asian centers, ARM practice shows marked regional variation and incomplete implementation of the IAPWG standardized protocol and London classification, highlighting persistent gaps in standardization. Strengthening procedural guidance, regionally appropriate normative data, and interpretation criteria through coordinated education and international collaboration is needed to support more consistent and clinically meaningful use of ARM in routine practice.
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.