The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Manometric tests of anorectal function in healthy adults
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Although tests of anorectal function are useful in the assessment of defecation disorders, there is inadequate and inconsistent information regarding normative data. Also, there are discrepancies in manometric techniques and data interpretation. Our aim was to perform a comprehensive evaluation of anorectal function in healthy adults. METHODS: We used a 6-mm diameter probe containing six radially arrayed microtransducers, and a 4-cm-long latex balloon for performing anorectal manometry in 45 healthy subjects who were controlled for gender and age. Sequentially, subjects were asked to squeeze, bear down, or blow up a party balloon. Subsequently, rectal sensation, rectal compliance, and rectoanal reflexes were assessed simultaneously by performing intermittent phasic balloon distentions. Additionally, balloon defecation, pudendal nerve latency, and saline continence tests were performed. RESULTS: In men, the anal sphincter was longer (p < 0.05) and squeeze sphincter pressure and squeeze duration were higher (p < 0.01), but resting sphincter pressure was similar to that in women. When bearing down, although not significant, the defecation index was higher in men. Distinct thresholds for rectal sensation were identified but there was no gender difference. Likewise, rectal compliance and balloon expulsion time were similar. However, during saline infusion, the onset of first leak and total volume retained were higher (p < 0.001) and pudendal nerve latency was shorter (p < 0.05) in men. Overall, parity or age did not influence anorectal function. CONCLUSIONS: This study represents the most comprehensive age- and gender-controlled assessment of anorectal function using solid state technology. Gender influences some parameters of anorectal function. Our results could serve as a valuable resource of normative data.
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
Drossman, D. A., Li, Z., Andruzzi, E., Temple, R. D., Talley, N. J., Grant Thompson, W., Whitehead, W. E., Janssens, J., Funch-Jensen, P., Corazziari, E., et al. (1993) · Digestive Diseases and Sciences · doi:10.1007/bf01303162 · Cited by 2,198
Cited by
Mechanisms, evaluation, and management of chronic constipation
Bharucha, A. E., & Lacy, B. E. (2020) · Gastroenterology · doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2019.12.034 · Cited by 655
Carrington, E. V., Heinrich, H., Knowles, C. H., Fox, M., Rao, S., Altomare, D. F., Bharucha, A. E., Burgell, R., Chey, W. D., Chiarioni, G., et al. (2020) · Neurogastroenterology & Motility · doi:10.1111/nmo.13679 · Cited by 325
Self-citationMinimum standards of anorectal manometry
Rao, S. S. C., Azpiroz, F., Diamant, N., Enck, P., Tougas, G., & Wald, A. (2002) · Neurogastroenterology & Motility · doi:10.1046/j.1365-2982.2002.00352.x · Cited by 310
Self-citationBharucha, A. E., & Wald, A. (2019) · Mayo Clinic Proceedings · doi:10.1016/j.mayocp.2019.01.031 · Cited by 238
Crosby, E. C., & Husk, K. E. (2021) · Obstetrics and Gynecology Clinics of North America · doi:10.1016/j.ogc.2021.05.016 · Cited by 9
Metadata
- Authors
- Rao, S.
- Venue
- The American Journal of Gastroenterology
- Published
- 1999-03
- Volume
- 94
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 773-783
- ISSN
- 0002-9270 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2084879045
- Cited by
- 310
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 2.99
- 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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Manometric tests of anorectal function in healthy adults. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s0002-9270(99)00005-2
- The paper
- Rao, S. (1999). Manometric tests of anorectal function in healthy adults. The American Journal of Gastroenterology. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0002-9270(99)00005-2
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.