2010
DOI: 10.1016/s0016-5085(10)61049-9
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

S1333 A Comparison of Two Radio-Opaque Marker Methodologies in the Assessment of Colonic Transit of Adults With Constipation

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2011
2011
2011
2011

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

1
0

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(1 citation statement)
references
References 0 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Further center-to-center variability in test meals, sampling intervals, and analysis algorithms undermine gastric scintigraphy accuracy [1]. The most common radioopaque colon transit test (Hinton) obtains one radiograph 5 days after marker ingestion and may be less accurate than the more intensive Metcalf method of serial X-rays after 3 days of marker ingestion [21,29,30]. Barium testing of small bowel transit is not standardized, while lactulose breath tests are unreliable due to artificial acceleration of small bowel propulsion by the substrate [31,32].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Further center-to-center variability in test meals, sampling intervals, and analysis algorithms undermine gastric scintigraphy accuracy [1]. The most common radioopaque colon transit test (Hinton) obtains one radiograph 5 days after marker ingestion and may be less accurate than the more intensive Metcalf method of serial X-rays after 3 days of marker ingestion [21,29,30]. Barium testing of small bowel transit is not standardized, while lactulose breath tests are unreliable due to artificial acceleration of small bowel propulsion by the substrate [31,32].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%