scholarly journals An exploring study of defecography, digital rectal examination, and balloon expulsion test for screening and predicting of symptoms with defecation disorders

2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (5) ◽  
Author(s):  
Xiaotong Tian ◽  
◽  
Qi Ge ◽  
Chunli Liang ◽  
Ruifang Li ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Digital Rectal Examination ◽  
Rectal Examination ◽  
Balloon Expulsion ◽  
Defecation Disorders ◽  
Balloon Expulsion Test

scholarly journals Digital Rectal Examination and Balloon Expulsion Test in the Study of Defecatory Disorders: Are They Suitable as Screening or Excluding Tests?

2016 ◽  
Vol 2016 ◽  
pp. 1-8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ana C. Caetano ◽  
André Santa-Cruz ◽  
Carla Rolanda
Keyword(s):  
Sensitivity And Specificity ◽  
Low Cost ◽  
Random Effect ◽  
Digital Rectal Examination ◽  
Standard Test ◽  
Rectal Examination ◽  
Balloon Expulsion ◽  
Balloon Expulsion Test ◽  
Physiological Tests ◽  
Sensitivity Specificity

Background. Rome III criteria add physiological criteria to symptom-based criteria of chronic constipation (CC) for the diagnosis of defecatory disorders (DD). However, a gold-standard test is still lacking and physiological examination is expensive and time-consuming. Aim. Evaluate the usefulness of two low-cost tests—digital rectal examination (DRE) and balloon expulsion test (BET)—as screening or excluding tests of DD. Methods. We performed a systematic search in PUBMED and MEDLINE. We selected studies where constipated patients were evaluated by DRE or BET. Heterogeneity was assessed and random effect models were used to calculate the sensitivity, specificity, and negative predictive value (NPV) of the DRE and the BET. Results. Thirteen studies evaluating BET and four studies evaluating DRE (2329 patients) were selected. High heterogeneity (I2>80%) among studies was demonstrated. The studies evaluating the BET showed a sensitivity and specificity of 67% and 80%, respectively. Regarding the DRE, a sensitivity of 80% and specificity of 84% were calculated. NPV of 72% for the BET and NPV of 64% for the DRE were estimated. The sensitivity and specificity were similar when we restrict the analysis to studies using Rome criteria to define CC. The BET seems to perform better when a cut-off time of 2 minutes is used and when it is compared with a combination of physiological tests. Considering the DRE, strict criteria seem to improve the sensitivity but not the specificity of the test. Conclusion. Neither of the low-cost tests seems suitable for screening or excluding DD.

scholarly journals Does Sequential Balloon Expulsion Test improve the screening of Defecation Disorders?

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ana Célia Caetano ◽  
Dalila Costa ◽  
Raquel Gonçalves ◽  
Jorge Correia-Pinto ◽  
Carla Rolanda
Keyword(s):  
Predictive Value ◽  
Low Cost ◽  
Digital Rectal Examination ◽  
Tertiary Hospital ◽  
Screening Methods ◽  
Balloon Expulsion ◽  
Defecation Disorders ◽  
Physiological Evaluation ◽  
Balloon Expulsion Test ◽  
Physiological Tests

Abstract Purpose A Defecation Disorder (DD) is a difficulty in evacuation documented by physiological exams. However, this physiological evaluation can be cumbersome, inaccessible and costly. Three “low-cost” tools to evaluate DD – a clinical DD score, the balloon expulsion test (BET) and a digital rectal examination (DRE) score were evaluated as separate or combined tests for DD screening. Methods This prospective study occurred between January 2015 and March 2019 in the Gastroenterology Department of a tertiary hospital. Besides the gold standard physiological tests, constipated patients answered the clinical DD score and were evaluated by DRE and BET (standard and variable volume (vv)). Results From 98 constipated patients, 35 (38.9%) were diagnosed with DD according to Rome IV criteria, mainly female (n = 30, 86%) with a median age of 60 years old. The clinical DD score revealed an AUC of 0.417 (SE = 0.07, p = 0.191). The DRE score displayed an AUC of 0.56 (SE = 0.063, p = 0.301). The standard BET displayed a sensitivity of 86%, specificity of 58%, positive predictive value (PPV) of 57% and negative predictive value (NPV) of 86%. The sequential vvBET followed by standard BET improved the BET performance regarding the evaluation of DD, with a sensitivity of 86%, specificity of 67%, PPV of 63% and NPV of 87%. The sequential BET had an OR 8.942, p > 0.001, CI 3.18–25.14, revealing to be the most significant predictor for DD screening. Conclusion The sequential BET is a low cost, well-performing DD screening tool, appropriate to the Primary Care Setting.

scholarly journals Does sequential balloon expulsion test improve the screening of defecation disorders?

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
A. C. Caetano ◽  
D. Costa ◽  
R. Gonçalves ◽  
J. Correia-Pinto ◽  
C. Rolanda
Keyword(s):  
Predictive Value ◽  
Low Cost ◽  
Digital Rectal Examination ◽  
Tertiary Hospital ◽  
Balloon Expulsion ◽  
Defecation Disorders ◽  
Physiological Evaluation ◽  
Balloon Expulsion Test ◽  
Physiological Tests ◽  
Defecation Disorder

Abstract Background A defecation disorder (DD) is a difficulty in evacuation documented by physiological exams. However, this physiological evaluation can be cumbersome, inaccessible and costly. Three “low-cost” tools to evaluate DD—a clinical DD score, the balloon expulsion test (BET) and a digital rectal examination (DRE) score were evaluated as separate or combined tests for DD screening. Methods This prospective study occurred between January 2015 and March 2019 in the Gastroenterology Department of a tertiary hospital. Besides the gold standard physiological tests, constipated patients answered the clinical DD score and were evaluated by DRE and BET [standard and variable volume (VV)]. Results From 98 constipated patients, 35 (38.9%) were diagnosed with DD according to Rome IV criteria, mainly female (n = 30, 86%) with a median age of 60 years old. The clinical DD score revealed an AUC of 0.417 (SE = 0.07, p = 0.191). The DRE score displayed an AUC of 0.56 (SE = 0.063, p = 0.301). The standard BET displayed a sensitivity of 86%, specificity of 58%, positive predictive value (PPV) of 57% and negative predictive value (NPV) of 86%. The sequential VVBET followed by standard BET improved the BET performance regarding the evaluation of DD, with a sensitivity of 86%, specificity of 67%, PPV of 63% and NPV of 87%. The sequential BET had an OR 8.942, p > 0.001, CI 3.18–25.14, revealing to be the most significant predictor for DD screening. Conclusion The sequential BET is a low cost, well-performing DD screening tool, appropriate to the Primary Care Setting.

scholarly journals Clinical diagnosis of prostate cancer using digital rectal examination and prostate-specific antigen tests: a systematic review and meta-analysis of sensitivity and specificity

2021 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Nelson C. Okpua ◽  
Simon I. Okekpa ◽  
Stanley Njaka ◽  
Augusta N. Emeh
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Prostate Specific Antigen ◽  
Sensitivity And Specificity ◽  
Specific Antigen ◽  
Digital Rectal Examination ◽  
Antigen Test ◽  
Rectal Examination ◽  
Prostate Specific Antigen Test ◽  
Prostate Cancers ◽  
Antigen Tests

Abstract Background Being diagnosed with cancer, irrespective of type initiates a serious psychological concern. The increasing rate of detection of indolent prostate cancers is a source of worry to public health. Digital rectal examination and prostate-specific antigen tests are the commonly used prostate cancer screening tests. Understanding the diagnostic accuracies of these tests may provide clearer pictures of their characteristics and values in prostate cancer diagnosis. This review compared the sensitivities and specificities of digital rectal examination and prostate-specific antigen test in detection of clinically important prostate cancers using studies from wider population. Main body We conducted literature search in PubMed, Medline, Science Direct, Wiley Online, CINAHL, Scopus, AJOL and Google Scholar, using key words and Boolean operators. Studies comparing the sensitivity and specificity of digital rectal examination and prostate-specific antigen tests in men 40 years and above, using biopsy as reference standard were retrieved. Data were extracted and analysed using Review manager (RevMan 5.3) statistical software. The overall quality of the studies was good, and heterogeneity was observed across the studies. The result comparatively shows that prostate-specific antigen test has higher sensitivity (P < 0.00001, RR 0.74, CI 0.67–0.83) and specificity (P < 0.00001, RR 1.81, CI 1.54–2.12) in the detection of prostate cancers than digital rectal examination. Conclusion Prostate-specific antigen test has higher sensitivity and specificity in detecting prostate cancers from men of multiple ethnic origins. However, combination of prostate-specific antigen test and standardized digital rectal examination procedure, along with patients history, may improve the accuracy and minimize over-diagnoses of indolent prostate cancers.

scholarly journals The Digital Divide: A Retrospective Survey of Digital Rectal Examinations during the Workup of Rectal Cancers

Healthcare ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (7) ◽  
pp. 855
Author(s):  
Omar Farooq ◽  
Ameer Farooq ◽  
Sunita Ghosh ◽  
Raza Qadri ◽  
Tanner Steed ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Rectal Cancer ◽  
Care Provider ◽  
Primary Care Provider ◽  
Demographic Data ◽  
Significant Proportion ◽  
Digital Rectal Examination ◽  
Patient Questionnaire ◽  
Rectal Examination ◽  
Rectal Cancers

Background: Digital rectal examination (DRE) is considered an important part of the physical examination. However, it is unclear how many patients have a DRE performed at the primary care level in the work-up of rectal cancer, and if the absence of a DRE causes a delay to consultation with a specialist. Methods: A retrospective patient questionnaire was sent to 1000 consecutive patients with stage II or stage III rectal cancer. The questionnaire asked patients to recall if they had a DRE performed by their general practitioner (GP) when they first presented with symptoms or a positive FIT test. Demographic data, staging data, and time to consultation with a specialist were also collected. Results: A thousand surveys were mailed out, and a total of 262 patients responded. Of the respondents, 46.2% did not recall undergoing a digital rectal examination by their primary care provider. Women were less likely to undergo a DRE than men (28.6% vs. 44.3%, p = 0.019). While there was a trend towards longer times to specialist consultation in patients who did not undergo a DRE (27.0 vs. 12.2 weeks), this was not statistically significant (p = 0.121). Conclusion: A significant proportion of patients who are FIT positive or have symptomatic rectal bleeding do not recall having a DRE by their primary care provider. Barriers may include lack of comfort with performing DRE or lack of time. Clearer guidelines and more support for GP’s may increase uptake of DRE.

scholarly journals Less is more—the best test for anastomotic leaks in rectal cancer patients prior to ileostomy reversal

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simon Lindner ◽  
Steffen Eitelbuss ◽  
Svetlana Hetjens ◽  
Joshua Gawlitza ◽  
Julia Hardt ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rectal Cancer ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Colorectal Anastomosis ◽  
Digital Rectal Examination ◽  
Contrast Enema ◽  
Paired Data ◽  
Endoscopic Procedures ◽  
Rectal Examination ◽  
Ileostomy Reversal

Abstract Purpose No clear consensus exists on how to routinely assess the integrity of the colorectal anastomosis prior to ileostomy reversal. The objective of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of contrast enema, endoscopic procedures, and digital rectal examination in rectal cancer patients in this setting. Methods A systematic literature search was performed. Studies assessing at least one index test for which a 2 × 2 table was calculable were included. Hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic curves were calculated and used for test comparison. Paired data were used where parameters could not be calculated. Methodological quality was assessed with the QUADAS-2 tool. Results Two prospective and 11 retrospective studies comprising 1903 patients were eligible for inclusion. Paired data analysis showed equal or better results for sensitivity and specificity of both endoscopic procedures and digital rectal examination compared to contrast enema. Subgroup analysis of contrast enema according to methodological quality revealed that studies with higher methodological quality reported poorer sensitivity for equal specificity and vice versa. No case was described where a contrast enema revealed an anastomotic leak that was overseen in digital rectal examination or endoscopic procedures. Conclusions Endoscopy and digital rectal examination appear to be the best diagnostic tests to assess the integrity of the colorectal anastomosis prior to ileostomy reversal. Accuracy measures of contrast enema are overestimated by studies with lower methodological quality. Synopsis of existing evidence and risk–benefit considerations justifies omission of contrast enema in favor of endoscopic and clinical assessment. Trial registration https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42019107771

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document