2020
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajem.2019.158377
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Utility of plain abdominal radiography in adult ED patients with suspected constipation

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
11
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 11 publications
(11 citation statements)
references
References 12 publications
0
11
0
Order By: Relevance
“…[ 6 ] A retrospective study by Driver et al . [ 12 ] revealed that the majority of patients who attended the ED and were subsequently diagnosed and treated for constipation had a normal radiograph with no or minimal stool burden. As such, abdominal radiographs performed in these patients did not play a beneficial role in their management.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…[ 6 ] A retrospective study by Driver et al . [ 12 ] revealed that the majority of patients who attended the ED and were subsequently diagnosed and treated for constipation had a normal radiograph with no or minimal stool burden. As such, abdominal radiographs performed in these patients did not play a beneficial role in their management.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This study reported data exclusively gathered on adult outpatients and did not utilize a formal scoring system to assess fecal burden. The selection of outpatients who reported GI symptoms was a unique aspect of this study compared to other adult studies performed in the emergency room setting [4]. Within this narrower population, the authors did indeed find clinical utility to this test, specifically noting that constipated patients were significantly more likely to have fecal loading compared with diarrhea patients, and that a complaint of bloating was also associated with fecal loading.…”
mentioning
confidence: 82%
“…It provides only a snapshot of faecal burden dependent on time of last meal and defecation, and provides no dynamic assessment of transit. Its performance in the assessment of constipation is unsatisfactory and its clinical utility questionable [15][16][17]. One study demonstrated a marked disagreement between observers in up to 18% of AXRs viewed [15]; it utilised a formal scoring system [18] for assessing faecal burden demarcating the colon into 3 segments (right colon, left colon and rectosigmoid colon) using anatomic landmarks, with a score of 0-5 in each sector.…”
Section: Abdominal Radiographmentioning
confidence: 99%