Clinical utility of diagnostic tests for constipation in adults

A systematic review

Satish Sanku Chander Rao, Ramazan Ozturk, Loren Laine

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

180 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Because symptoms alone do not identify pathophysiology or differentiate subgroups of constipation, diagnostic tests are generally recommended. However, their utility is not known. We performed a systematic review of diagnostic tests commonly used in constipation. METHODS: We searched the English literature using MEDLINE and PUBMED databases from 1966 to 2004 for studies in adults published as full manuscripts whose methodological quality was above a minimum score. RESULTS: No studies assessed the routine use of blood tests or abdominal x-ray. One retrospective endoscopic study showed that cancer and polyp detection rate was comparable to historical controls. Two studies of barium enema were unhelpful in diagnosis of constipation. Physiological studies showed differences in study population, methodology, and interpretation, and there was no gold standard. Ten colonic transit studies showed prevalence of 38-80% in support of slow transit constipation. Nine anorectal manometry studies showed prevalence of 20-75% for detecting dyssynergia. Nine studies of balloon expulsion showed impaired expulsion of 23-67%. Among 10 defecography studies, abnormalities were reported in 25-90% and dyssynergia in 13-37%. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence to support the use of blood tests, radiography, or endoscopy in the routine work up of patients with constipation without alarm features is lacking. Colonic transit, anorectal manometry, and balloon expulsion tests reveal physiologic abnormalities in many selected patients with constipation, but no single test adequately defines pathophysiology. Large, well-designed, prospective studies are required to examine the utility of these tests.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1605-1615
Number of pages11
JournalAmerican Journal of Gastroenterology
Volume100
Issue number7
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 1 2005
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Constipation
Routine Diagnostic Tests
Manometry
Hematologic Tests
Ataxia
Cross-Sectional Studies
Defecography
Literature
Manuscripts
Polyps
Radiography
MEDLINE
Endoscopy
Retrospective Studies
X-Rays
Databases
Prospective Studies
Population
Neoplasms

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Hepatology
  • Gastroenterology

Cite this

Clinical utility of diagnostic tests for constipation in adults : A systematic review. / Rao, Satish Sanku Chander; Ozturk, Ramazan; Laine, Loren.

In: American Journal of Gastroenterology, Vol. 100, No. 7, 01.07.2005, p. 1605-1615.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

@article{7a492d172d9340ce8f5f46b2b1ffabf6,
title = "Clinical utility of diagnostic tests for constipation in adults: A systematic review",
abstract = "BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Because symptoms alone do not identify pathophysiology or differentiate subgroups of constipation, diagnostic tests are generally recommended. However, their utility is not known. We performed a systematic review of diagnostic tests commonly used in constipation. METHODS: We searched the English literature using MEDLINE and PUBMED databases from 1966 to 2004 for studies in adults published as full manuscripts whose methodological quality was above a minimum score. RESULTS: No studies assessed the routine use of blood tests or abdominal x-ray. One retrospective endoscopic study showed that cancer and polyp detection rate was comparable to historical controls. Two studies of barium enema were unhelpful in diagnosis of constipation. Physiological studies showed differences in study population, methodology, and interpretation, and there was no gold standard. Ten colonic transit studies showed prevalence of 38-80{\%} in support of slow transit constipation. Nine anorectal manometry studies showed prevalence of 20-75{\%} for detecting dyssynergia. Nine studies of balloon expulsion showed impaired expulsion of 23-67{\%}. Among 10 defecography studies, abnormalities were reported in 25-90{\%} and dyssynergia in 13-37{\%}. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence to support the use of blood tests, radiography, or endoscopy in the routine work up of patients with constipation without alarm features is lacking. Colonic transit, anorectal manometry, and balloon expulsion tests reveal physiologic abnormalities in many selected patients with constipation, but no single test adequately defines pathophysiology. Large, well-designed, prospective studies are required to examine the utility of these tests.",
author = "Rao, {Satish Sanku Chander} and Ramazan Ozturk and Loren Laine",
year = "2005",
month = "7",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1111/j.1572-0241.2005.41845.x",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "100",
pages = "1605--1615",
journal = "American Journal of Gastroenterology",
issn = "0002-9270",
publisher = "Nature Publishing Group",
number = "7",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Clinical utility of diagnostic tests for constipation in adults

T2 - A systematic review

AU - Rao, Satish Sanku Chander

AU - Ozturk, Ramazan

AU - Laine, Loren

PY - 2005/7/1

Y1 - 2005/7/1

N2 - BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Because symptoms alone do not identify pathophysiology or differentiate subgroups of constipation, diagnostic tests are generally recommended. However, their utility is not known. We performed a systematic review of diagnostic tests commonly used in constipation. METHODS: We searched the English literature using MEDLINE and PUBMED databases from 1966 to 2004 for studies in adults published as full manuscripts whose methodological quality was above a minimum score. RESULTS: No studies assessed the routine use of blood tests or abdominal x-ray. One retrospective endoscopic study showed that cancer and polyp detection rate was comparable to historical controls. Two studies of barium enema were unhelpful in diagnosis of constipation. Physiological studies showed differences in study population, methodology, and interpretation, and there was no gold standard. Ten colonic transit studies showed prevalence of 38-80% in support of slow transit constipation. Nine anorectal manometry studies showed prevalence of 20-75% for detecting dyssynergia. Nine studies of balloon expulsion showed impaired expulsion of 23-67%. Among 10 defecography studies, abnormalities were reported in 25-90% and dyssynergia in 13-37%. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence to support the use of blood tests, radiography, or endoscopy in the routine work up of patients with constipation without alarm features is lacking. Colonic transit, anorectal manometry, and balloon expulsion tests reveal physiologic abnormalities in many selected patients with constipation, but no single test adequately defines pathophysiology. Large, well-designed, prospective studies are required to examine the utility of these tests.

AB - BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Because symptoms alone do not identify pathophysiology or differentiate subgroups of constipation, diagnostic tests are generally recommended. However, their utility is not known. We performed a systematic review of diagnostic tests commonly used in constipation. METHODS: We searched the English literature using MEDLINE and PUBMED databases from 1966 to 2004 for studies in adults published as full manuscripts whose methodological quality was above a minimum score. RESULTS: No studies assessed the routine use of blood tests or abdominal x-ray. One retrospective endoscopic study showed that cancer and polyp detection rate was comparable to historical controls. Two studies of barium enema were unhelpful in diagnosis of constipation. Physiological studies showed differences in study population, methodology, and interpretation, and there was no gold standard. Ten colonic transit studies showed prevalence of 38-80% in support of slow transit constipation. Nine anorectal manometry studies showed prevalence of 20-75% for detecting dyssynergia. Nine studies of balloon expulsion showed impaired expulsion of 23-67%. Among 10 defecography studies, abnormalities were reported in 25-90% and dyssynergia in 13-37%. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence to support the use of blood tests, radiography, or endoscopy in the routine work up of patients with constipation without alarm features is lacking. Colonic transit, anorectal manometry, and balloon expulsion tests reveal physiologic abnormalities in many selected patients with constipation, but no single test adequately defines pathophysiology. Large, well-designed, prospective studies are required to examine the utility of these tests.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=22744440933&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=22744440933&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2005.41845.x

DO - 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2005.41845.x

M3 - Review article

VL - 100

SP - 1605

EP - 1615

JO - American Journal of Gastroenterology

JF - American Journal of Gastroenterology

SN - 0002-9270

IS - 7

ER -