Digital Rectal Examination Is a Valuable Bedside Tool for Detecting Dyssynergic Defecation: A Diagnostic Study and a Meta-Analysis
Background. Accurate dyssynergic defecation (DD) diagnosis depends on anorectal physiological tests that are not widely available. Aim. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the diagnostic yield of digital rectal examination (DRE) compared with anorectal physiological tests in diagnosing DD in pa...
Guardado en:
| Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Formato: | article |
| Lenguaje: | EN |
| Publicado: |
Hindawi Limited
2021
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | https://doaj.org/article/161165a394ce4ff9b4568f579b995fad |
| Etiquetas: |
Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
|
| Sumario: | Background. Accurate dyssynergic defecation (DD) diagnosis depends on anorectal physiological tests that are not widely available. Aim. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the diagnostic yield of digital rectal examination (DRE) compared with anorectal physiological tests in diagnosing DD in patients with constipation. Methods. A total of 218 chronic constipation patients who fulfilled the Rome IV diagnostic criteria for functional constipation (FC) and underwent a standardized DRE and high-resolution anorectal manometry (HRAM) test were enrolled in this study. The diagnostic accuracy of DRE compared with HRAM was evaluated, and the agreement between DRE and HRAM was calculated. Furthermore, a comprehensive literature search on PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Embase database was conducted to further elucidate the pooled diagnostic accuracy of DRE in DD patients. Results. A total of 101 patients (46.33%) had a DD pattern using HRAM, while 117 patients (53.67%) were diagnosed without DD. The sensitivity of DRE in diagnosing dyssynergia was 71.3%, and the specificity was 76.1%. There was a moderate agreement between DRE and HRAM for diagnosing DD (κ-coefficient = 0.474, P<0.001). Meanwhile, six studies (including our study) comprising 964 constipated patients were included in our meta-analysis. The outcomes demonstrated that the AUC was 0.85 (95% CI 0.82–0.88) with 77% summary sensitivity (95% CI 65–86) and 80% summary specificity (95% CI 71–86) to diagnose DD. Conclusions. DRE could be a valuable tool for screening DD. Our study revealed acceptable sensitivity and specificity of DRE in detecting dyssynergia compared with the physiological tests. Meanwhile, our study highlights that DRE remains an important tool in clinical practice. |
|---|