ArticleAnnals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England1994
Anorectal physiology measurements are of no value in clinical practice. True or false?
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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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 · 2005Article
- Fecal incontinence.Digestive diseases and sciences · 1999Review
- The utilization of colon transit scintigraphy in the diagnostic algorithm for patients with chronic constipation.Digestive diseases and sciences · 1999Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
8074392PMC2502250W2255850532What 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.