Cited by 928Gastrointestinal motility and disordersPelvic floor disorders treatmentsIntestinal Malrotation and Obstruction Disorders

Simplified assessment of segmental colonic transit

Metcalf, Amanda M., Phillips, Sidney F., Zinsmeister, Alan R., MacCarty, Robert L., Beart, Robert W., Wolff, Bruce G.·1987·Gastroenterology

Abstract

Transit times of radiopaque markers through the human gut were measured by published techniques and compared with a simplified method. Three sets of distinctive markers were ingested by 24 healthy persons on 3 successive days. In the first part of the study, daily abdominal x-rays were taken and individual stools were collected for radiography. Mouth-to-anus transits were assessed from the fecal output of markers and mean colonic and segmental colonic transits were calculated from the daily radiographs. These established methods were then compared with estimates of total colonic and segmental transits based on a single abdominal film, taken on the fourth day. The single-film technique correlated well with values obtained from the previous, but more inconvenient, methods. Using the simpler approach, colonic transit was assessed in 49 additional healthy subjects, for a total group of 73. Total colonic transit was 35.0 +/- 2.1 h (mean +/- SE); segmental transits was 11.3 +/- 1.1 h for the right colon, 11.4 +/- 1.4 h for the left colon, and 12.4 +/- 1.1 h for the rectosigmoid. Men had significantly shorter transits for the whole colon than did women (p less than 0.05), and this difference was apparent to some extent in the right (p = 0.06) and left colon (p = 0.07) but not in the rectosigmoid. Age did not influence transit significantly nor did a small dose of supplemental fiber. The technique is simple, convenient for clinical usage, and reduces the exposure to radiation to acce…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/0016-5085(87)90837-7

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Distinguishing slow-transit constipation from evacuation disorders (e.g., pelvic floor dyssynergia) is a useful first step because confirmatory tests and treatment strategies differ.

    “A useful first step is to distinguish slow-transit constipation from evacuation disorders (e.g., pelvic floor dyssynergia), because confirmatory tests and treatment strategies differ (Manabe et al., 2010; Metcalf et al., 1987).”

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Metcalf, A. M., Phillips, S. F., Zinsmeister, A. R., MacCarty, R. L., Beart, R. W., & Wolff, B. G.
Affiliations
Mayo Clinic (US)
Venue
Gastroenterology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
1987-01
Volume
92
Issue
1
Pages
40-47
ISSN
0016-5085 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1567581279
Cited by
928
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 28 · 2019: 33 · 2018: 23 · 2017: 29 · 2016: 38 · 2015: 28 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 30 · 2012: 30
FWCI
14.56
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Gastroenterology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (5r01am032121-03, 3p30am034988-01s1)
  • National Center for Research Resources (RR-585)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Gastroenterology › Gastrointestinal motility and disorders
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rheumatology › Pelvic floor disorders treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Intestinal Malrotation and Obstruction Disorders
Keywords
colonic transit, radiopaque markers, proximal colon, left colon, rectosigmoid, dietary fiber, radiation dose reduction
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Colon, Dietary Fiber, Digestive System, Female, Gastrointestinal Motility, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Radiography

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