Diagnostic disagreement between tests of evacuatory function: a prospective study of 100 constipated patients

S. Palit, N. Thin, C. H. Knowles, P. J. Lunniss, Adil Eddie Bharucha, S. M. Scott

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

25 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Evacuatory dysfunction (ED) is a common cause of constipation and may be sub-classified on the basis of specialist tests. Such tests may guide treatment e.g., biofeedback therapy for ‘functional’ defecatory disorders (FDD). However, there is no gold standard, and prior studies have not prospectively and systematically compared all tests that are used to diagnose forms of ED. Methods: One hundred consecutive patients fulfilling Rome III criteria for functional constipation underwent four tests: expulsion of a rectal balloon distended to 50 mL (BE50) or until patients experienced the desire to defecate (BEDDV), evacuation proctography (EP) and anorectal manometry. Yields and agreements between tests for the diagnosis of ED and FDD were assessed. Key Results: Positive diagnostic yields for ED were: BEDDV 18%, BE50 31%, EP 38% and anorectal manometry (ARM) 68%. Agreement was substantial between the two balloon tests (k = 0.66), only fair between proctography and BE50 (k = 0.27), poor between manometry and proctography (k = 0.01), and there was no agreement between the balloon tests and manometry (k = −0.07 for both BE50 and BEDDV). For the diagnosis of FDD, there was only fair agreement between ARM and EP (k = 0.23), ARM ± BE50 and EP (k = 0.18), ARM and EP ± BE50 (k = 0.30) and ARM ± BE50 and EP ± BE50 (k = 0.23). Conclusions & Inferences: There is considerable disagreement between the results of various tests used to diagnose ED and FDD. This highlights the need for a reappraisal of both diagnostic criteria, and what represents the ‘gold standard’ investigation.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1589-1598
Number of pages10
JournalNeurogastroenterology and Motility
Volume28
Issue number10
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 1 2016

Fingerprint

Manometry
Prospective Studies
Constipation
Therapeutics

Keywords

  • anorectal manometry
  • balloon expulsion test
  • chronic constipation
  • proctography

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Physiology
  • Endocrine and Autonomic Systems
  • Gastroenterology

Cite this

Diagnostic disagreement between tests of evacuatory function : a prospective study of 100 constipated patients. / Palit, S.; Thin, N.; Knowles, C. H.; Lunniss, P. J.; Bharucha, Adil Eddie; Scott, S. M.

In: Neurogastroenterology and Motility, Vol. 28, No. 10, 01.10.2016, p. 1589-1598.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Palit, S. ; Thin, N. ; Knowles, C. H. ; Lunniss, P. J. ; Bharucha, Adil Eddie ; Scott, S. M. / Diagnostic disagreement between tests of evacuatory function : a prospective study of 100 constipated patients. In: Neurogastroenterology and Motility. 2016 ; Vol. 28, No. 10. pp. 1589-1598.
@article{46cb677789554d2bb5a9f191db9164cd,
title = "Diagnostic disagreement between tests of evacuatory function: a prospective study of 100 constipated patients",
abstract = "Background: Evacuatory dysfunction (ED) is a common cause of constipation and may be sub-classified on the basis of specialist tests. Such tests may guide treatment e.g., biofeedback therapy for ‘functional’ defecatory disorders (FDD). However, there is no gold standard, and prior studies have not prospectively and systematically compared all tests that are used to diagnose forms of ED. Methods: One hundred consecutive patients fulfilling Rome III criteria for functional constipation underwent four tests: expulsion of a rectal balloon distended to 50 mL (BE50) or until patients experienced the desire to defecate (BEDDV), evacuation proctography (EP) and anorectal manometry. Yields and agreements between tests for the diagnosis of ED and FDD were assessed. Key Results: Positive diagnostic yields for ED were: BEDDV 18{\%}, BE50 31{\%}, EP 38{\%} and anorectal manometry (ARM) 68{\%}. Agreement was substantial between the two balloon tests (k = 0.66), only fair between proctography and BE50 (k = 0.27), poor between manometry and proctography (k = 0.01), and there was no agreement between the balloon tests and manometry (k = −0.07 for both BE50 and BEDDV). For the diagnosis of FDD, there was only fair agreement between ARM and EP (k = 0.23), ARM ± BE50 and EP (k = 0.18), ARM and EP ± BE50 (k = 0.30) and ARM ± BE50 and EP ± BE50 (k = 0.23). Conclusions & Inferences: There is considerable disagreement between the results of various tests used to diagnose ED and FDD. This highlights the need for a reappraisal of both diagnostic criteria, and what represents the ‘gold standard’ investigation.",
keywords = "anorectal manometry, balloon expulsion test, chronic constipation, proctography",
author = "S. Palit and N. Thin and Knowles, {C. H.} and Lunniss, {P. J.} and Bharucha, {Adil Eddie} and Scott, {S. M.}",
year = "2016",
month = "10",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1111/nmo.12859",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "28",
pages = "1589--1598",
journal = "Neurogastroenterology and Motility",
issn = "1350-1925",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "10",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Diagnostic disagreement between tests of evacuatory function

T2 - a prospective study of 100 constipated patients

AU - Palit, S.

AU - Thin, N.

AU - Knowles, C. H.

AU - Lunniss, P. J.

AU - Bharucha, Adil Eddie

AU - Scott, S. M.

PY - 2016/10/1

Y1 - 2016/10/1

N2 - Background: Evacuatory dysfunction (ED) is a common cause of constipation and may be sub-classified on the basis of specialist tests. Such tests may guide treatment e.g., biofeedback therapy for ‘functional’ defecatory disorders (FDD). However, there is no gold standard, and prior studies have not prospectively and systematically compared all tests that are used to diagnose forms of ED. Methods: One hundred consecutive patients fulfilling Rome III criteria for functional constipation underwent four tests: expulsion of a rectal balloon distended to 50 mL (BE50) or until patients experienced the desire to defecate (BEDDV), evacuation proctography (EP) and anorectal manometry. Yields and agreements between tests for the diagnosis of ED and FDD were assessed. Key Results: Positive diagnostic yields for ED were: BEDDV 18%, BE50 31%, EP 38% and anorectal manometry (ARM) 68%. Agreement was substantial between the two balloon tests (k = 0.66), only fair between proctography and BE50 (k = 0.27), poor between manometry and proctography (k = 0.01), and there was no agreement between the balloon tests and manometry (k = −0.07 for both BE50 and BEDDV). For the diagnosis of FDD, there was only fair agreement between ARM and EP (k = 0.23), ARM ± BE50 and EP (k = 0.18), ARM and EP ± BE50 (k = 0.30) and ARM ± BE50 and EP ± BE50 (k = 0.23). Conclusions & Inferences: There is considerable disagreement between the results of various tests used to diagnose ED and FDD. This highlights the need for a reappraisal of both diagnostic criteria, and what represents the ‘gold standard’ investigation.

AB - Background: Evacuatory dysfunction (ED) is a common cause of constipation and may be sub-classified on the basis of specialist tests. Such tests may guide treatment e.g., biofeedback therapy for ‘functional’ defecatory disorders (FDD). However, there is no gold standard, and prior studies have not prospectively and systematically compared all tests that are used to diagnose forms of ED. Methods: One hundred consecutive patients fulfilling Rome III criteria for functional constipation underwent four tests: expulsion of a rectal balloon distended to 50 mL (BE50) or until patients experienced the desire to defecate (BEDDV), evacuation proctography (EP) and anorectal manometry. Yields and agreements between tests for the diagnosis of ED and FDD were assessed. Key Results: Positive diagnostic yields for ED were: BEDDV 18%, BE50 31%, EP 38% and anorectal manometry (ARM) 68%. Agreement was substantial between the two balloon tests (k = 0.66), only fair between proctography and BE50 (k = 0.27), poor between manometry and proctography (k = 0.01), and there was no agreement between the balloon tests and manometry (k = −0.07 for both BE50 and BEDDV). For the diagnosis of FDD, there was only fair agreement between ARM and EP (k = 0.23), ARM ± BE50 and EP (k = 0.18), ARM and EP ± BE50 (k = 0.30) and ARM ± BE50 and EP ± BE50 (k = 0.23). Conclusions & Inferences: There is considerable disagreement between the results of various tests used to diagnose ED and FDD. This highlights the need for a reappraisal of both diagnostic criteria, and what represents the ‘gold standard’ investigation.

KW - anorectal manometry

KW - balloon expulsion test

KW - chronic constipation

KW - proctography

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84988968902&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84988968902&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/nmo.12859

DO - 10.1111/nmo.12859

M3 - Article

C2 - 27154577

AN - SCOPUS:84988968902

VL - 28

SP - 1589

EP - 1598

JO - Neurogastroenterology and Motility

JF - Neurogastroenterology and Motility

SN - 1350-1925

IS - 10

ER -