The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Rectal mucosal electrosensory testing—Evidence for a rectal sensory neuropathy in idiopathic constipation
Abstract
Rectal sensation is usually assessed using balloon distention. The authors describe a more precise technique that avoids the variables of balloon dynamics and rectal diameter and compliance. Using both methods, rectal sensation was assessed in 13 healthy control women and 26 women with severe idiopathic constipation. Balloon distention in the rectum revealed an elevated sensory threshold (16.9 +/- 4.4 vs. 30.4 +/- 3.1 ml air, controls vs. patients, P = 0.018) and volume required to elicit a call to stool (61.1 +/- 9.1 vs. 97.5 +/- 6.4, P = 0.003) in subjects with severe constipation. The maximum tolerated volume was similar in the two groups. Rectal mucosal electrosensitivity was then tested using a bipolar ring electrode supplying a constant current. This demonstrated an elevated sensory threshold in the constipated subjects (16.3 +/- 3.0 vs. 27.4 +/- 2.1 mAmps, P = 0.005). There was a significant correlation between the sensation thresholds for balloon distention and electrical stimulation for the entire subject group (r = 0.39, P = 0.01). Two other patients with severe constipation after suspected extrinsic nerve damage were also studied and demonstrated a markedly abnormal electrical sensory threshold. Electrical testing avoided the variables inherent in balloon distention and was well tolerated, accurately quantifiable, and reproducible. The raised threshold to electrosensory mucosal testing suggests the presence of a rectal sensory neuropathy in patients with severe idiopathic constipation.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENT
Martin Bland, J., & Altman, D. (1986) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(86)90837-8 · Cited by 47,965
Cited by
AGA technical review on anorectal testing techniques
Diamant, N. E., Kamm, M. A., Wald, A., & Whitehead, W. E. (1999) · Gastroenterology · doi:10.1016/s0016-5085(99)70195-2 · Cited by 461
Self-citationSpeakman, C. T. M., Madden, M. V., Nicholls, R. J., & Kamm, M. A. (1991) · Journal of British Surgery · doi:10.1002/bjs.1800781207 · Cited by 276
Self-citationMurray, C. D. R., Flynn, J., Ratcliffe, L., Jacyna, M. R., Kamm, M. A., & Emmanuel, A. V. (2004) · Gastroenterology · doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2004.08.057 · Cited by 185
Self-citationPathophysiology and management of bowel dysfunction in multiple sclerosis
Wiesel, P. H., Norton, C., Glickman, S., & Kamm, M. A. (2001) · European Journal of Gastroenterology & Hepatology · doi:10.1097/00042737-200104000-00025 · Cited by 121
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Kamm, M. A., & Lennard-Jones, J. E.
- Venue
- Diseases of the Colon & Rectum
- Published
- 1990-05
- Volume
- 33
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 419-423
- ISSN
- 0012-3706 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2082907399
- Cited by
- 165
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 8.57
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.