| Title |
Magnetic resonance defecography versus clinical examination and fluoroscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Techniques in Coloproctology, November 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10151-017-1704-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
L. Ramage, C. Simillis, C. Yen, C. Lutterodt, S. Qiu, E. Tan, C. Kontovounisios, P. Tekkis |
| Abstract |
Magnetic resonance defecography (MRD) allows for dynamic visualisation of the pelvic floor compartments when assessing for pelvic floor dysfunction. Additional benefits over traditional techniques are largely unknown. The aim of this study was to compare detection and miss rates of pelvic floor abnormalities with MRD versus clinical examination and traditional fluoroscopic techniques. A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with recommendations from the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were accessed. Studies were included if they reported detection rates of at least one outcome of interest with MRD versus EITHER clinical examination AND/OR fluoroscopic techniques within the same cohort of patients. Twenty-eight studies were included: 14 studies compared clinical examination to MRD, and 16 compared fluoroscopic techniques to MRD. Detection and miss rates with MRD were not significantly different from clinical examination findings for any outcome except enterocele, where MRD had a higher detection rate (37.16% with MRD vs 25.08%; OR 2.23, 95% CI 1.21-4.11, p = 0.010) and lower miss rates (1.20 vs 37.35%; OR 0.05, 95% CI 0.01-0.20, p = 0.0001) compared to clinical examination. However, compared to fluoroscopy, MRD had a lower detection rate for rectoceles (61.84 vs 73.68%; OR 0.48 95% CI 0.30-0.76, p = 0.002) rectoanal intussusception (37.91 vs 57.14%; OR 0.32, 95% CI 0.16-0.66, p = 0.002) and perineal descent (52.29 vs 74.51%; OR 0.36, 95% CI 0.17-0.74, p = 0.006). Miss rates of MRD were also higher compared to fluoroscopy for rectoceles (15.96 vs 0%; OR 15.74, 95% CI 5.34-46.40, p < 0.00001), intussusception (36.11 vs 3.70%; OR 10.52, 95% CI 3.25-34.03, p = 0.0001) and perineal descent (32.11 vs 0.92%; OR 12.30, 95% CI 3.38-44.76, p = 0.0001). MRD has a role in the assessment of pelvic floor dysfunction. However, clinicians need to be mindful of the risk of underdiagnosis and consider the use of additional imaging. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 50 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 7 | 14% |
| United States | 7 | 14% |
| Spain | 5 | 10% |
| Chile | 3 | 6% |
| Mexico | 3 | 6% |
| Italy | 2 | 4% |
| Turkey | 2 | 4% |
| Brazil | 1 | 2% |
| Egypt | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 5 | 10% |
| Unknown | 14 | 28% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 23 | 46% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 13 | 26% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 7 | 14% |
| Scientists | 6 | 12% |
| Unknown | 1 | 2% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 54 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 54 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 9 | 17% |
| Other | 9 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 7% |
| Other | 7 | 13% |
| Unknown | 14 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 27 | 50% |
| Psychology | 3 | 6% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 4% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 2% |
| Neuroscience | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 19 | 35% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 28. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 March 2018.
All research outputs
#1,332,643
of 24,615,420 outputs
Outputs from Techniques in Coloproctology
#93
of 1,333 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,609
of 334,548 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Techniques in Coloproctology
#12
of 41 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,615,420 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,333 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 334,548 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 41 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.