Evidence Hub

Examining Balloon Expulsion Testing as an Office-Based, Screening Test for Dyssynergic Defecation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Shah ED, Farida JD, Menees S, Baker JR, Chey WD

The American journal of gastroenterology, 2018

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Balloon expulsion testing (BET) is recommended to evaluate for dyssynergic defecation in patients with chronic constipation (CC). However, it remains poorly standardized and is limited to specialized centers. Our goal was to assess the clinical utility of balloon expulsion as an initial test for dyssynergic defecation and to determine appropriate testing parameters.

METHODS: We performed a literature search to identify cohort studies of unselected subjects with CC and case-control studies of subjects with/without dyssynergic defecation. We defined dyssynergic defecation by constipation symptoms and a positive reference test (anorectal manometry [ARM], defecography, or electromyography [EMG]). We performed a meta-analysis using a bivariate mixed-effects regression model to assess summary sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve (AUC) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We conducted a meta-regression to investigate individual test parameters and demographic variables.

RESULTS: We identified 15 eligible studies comprising 2090 individual assessments of BET. Among cohort studies, the AUC was 0.80 (95% CI: 0.61-0.91) with 70% sensitivity (95% CI: 52-83%) and 77% specificity (95% CI: 70-82%). In pooling cohort and case-control studies, the AUC was 0.84 (95% CI: 0.68-0.93) with 70% sensitivity (95% CI: 53-82%) and 81% specificity (95% CI: 75-86%). Subject positioning (seated vs. left lateral decubitus) did not significantly affect test performance in cohort (p…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free