Evidence map›Paper›PMID 8074392›Full record

ArticleAnnals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England1994

Anorectal physiology measurements are of no value in clinical practice. True or false?

N J Carty, B Moran, C D Johnson

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, 1994. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 23% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Anal manometric parameters: predictors of outcome following anal sphincter repair?Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2005
    Article
  2. Fecal incontinence.Digestive diseases and sciences · 1999
    Review
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

N J CartyRoyal South Hants Hospital, Southampton.
B Moran
C D Johnson
Royal South Hants Hospital · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This article examines whether there is any clinical value in anorectal physiology measurements. The function of the human rectum is poorly understood and the factors which affect function of the anal sphincters are complex. Several laboratories have reported results of anorectal physiology measurements, but there is extensive variation between normal values in different laboratories. It is argued that anorectal physiology measurements fail to meet the criteria of a useful clinical test: 1. It is not widely available to clinicians; 2. It is not possible to establish a reproducible normal range; 3. Abnormal measurements do not correlate with disease entities or explain symptoms; 4. The results are often unhelpful in diagnosis and management; 5. Clinical outcome after intervention does not correlate with alteration in the measurements obtained. On the other hand it can be argued that anorectal physiology measurements do provide information that assists in the management of conditions such as constipation, anismus, Hirschsprung's disease, faecal incontinence and tenesmus. Management based on biofeedback modification of physiological responses requires these techniques as part of the biofeedback system. There is evidence that this may be appropriate in anismus and solitary rectal ulcer syndrome. However, the assessment of these difficult conditions and the interpretation of the results are probably at present best confined to specialist units.

Indexed as

Anal CanalAnus DiseasesConstipationFecal IncontinenceHumansManometryPredictive Value of TestsRectum

Identifiers

PMID8074392
PMCPMC2502250
OpenAlexW2255850532

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.