ArticleLa Radiologia medica2026
Standardizing MR defecography referral and reporting: a multidisciplinary Delphi consensus.
Article in La Radiologia medica, 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
28 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeDynamic magnetic resonance defecography (MRD) is a key imaging modality for comprehensive evaluation of pelvic floor dysfunction, enabling detailed multiplanar anatomical and functional assessment without ionizing radiation. However, despite its established clinical role, MRD reporting is heterogeneous among centers, hindering standardized interpretation, multidisciplinary communication, and comparison across studies. This modified Delphi consensus study aimed to develop a standardized referral dataset and structured reporting framework for MRD.
methodsA multidisciplinary panel of 20 Italian experts (radiologists, colorectal surgeons, gynecologists, urologists, gastroenterologists, physiatrists, and a methodologist) conducted a three-round Delphi process to develop consensus-based templates for MRD referral and reporting. Consensus was set at ≥75% agreement. A total of 36 items were evaluated, covering technical parameters, anatomical/functional findings, and reporting format.
resultsConsensus was achieved for 21 items (58%), including technical parameters, standardized measurements (anorectal angle, pubococcygeal line), and clinically relevant descriptors (prolapse, dyssynergia, rectocele, rectal inertia). A structured referral template was also developed to improve information transfer from clinicians to radiologists. Both tools were unanimously endorsed.
conclusionsThis modified Delphi consensus study provides a multidisciplinary framework for standardized MRD referral and reporting. The proposed reporting template may facilitate greater consistency in image interpretation, reporting terminology, and multidisciplinary communication. These recommendations may serve as a foundation for the harmonization of MRD practice and future validation studies in pelvic floor imaging.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42768194What 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.