| Title |
Debate: the per rectal/digital rectal examination exam in the emergency department, still best practice?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal of Emergency Medicine, March 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12245-018-0165-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
John Quinn, Tomas Zeleny, Venu Rajaratnam, Dan-Lucian Ghiurluc, Vladimir Bencko |
| Abstract |
Emergency medicine practice in the UK and Ireland offers a junior and middle grade doctor great learning opportunities that force engagement with multiple specialties, life-saving procedures, exposure to a myriad of patient presentations, and opportunities for best practices in medicine. The emergency department (ED) can be a hectic and dynamic environment; communication from the ED to specialists is essential to ensure best clinical outcomes for patients. The "per rectal" (PR) or "digital rectal exam" (DRE) can be a very difficult diagnostic test for even the most skilled operator to discern pathological versus normal; we propose this is especially the case in the emergency department patient population. Some specialists require this exam performed by an unskilled junior doctor with varying results prior to reviewing a referred and sick patient. The PR/DRE benefits may be limited in the ED setting for some pathologies, and the result of the exam may have limited impact in the overall treatment plan in the ED. This short paper reviews the indications, benefits, shortfalls, and limitations of the PR/DRE in the emergency department setting and offers novel alternatives to maximize best practice, ensure best clinical outcomes for patients, and, to first, do no harm. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 States | 3 | 38% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 13% |
| Australia | 1 | 13% |
| Unknown | 3 | 38% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 6 | 75% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 13% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 13% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 41 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 8 | 20% |
| Researcher | 4 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 5% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 5 | 12% |
| Unknown | 17 | 41% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 17 | 41% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 5% |
| Neuroscience | 1 | 2% |
| Engineering | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 18 | 44% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 12 July 2021.
All research outputs
#6,214,013
of 23,007,887 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Emergency Medicine
#199
of 606 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#109,580
of 329,940 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Emergency Medicine
#8
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,007,887 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 606 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% 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 329,940 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 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 65% of its contemporaries.