TABLE 3.

Summary of studies evaluating anorectal function in FI in CD patients.

Study	Country	Study type	Subjects	Source of subject recruitment	Methods to assess disease activity	Diagnostic criteria for FI	No. (%) with FI	Methods of assessing anorectal function	Quality assessment
Papathanasopoulos, 2013	Greece	Cross-sectional study	52 patients (38 CD, 14 healthy controls)	An academic tertiary-care center	CDAI	Patient report	13 (25)	1. Anorectal Manometry; 2. FRI; 3. Rectal Distension Studies; 4. Rectal Compliance; 5. EAUS	High
Litta, 2021	Italy	Cohort study	50 patients (30 CD, 20 healthy controls)	A medical center	HBI; Endoscopy; Fecal calprotectin	Patient report; CCFI	6 (12)	1. ARM; 2.3D-EAUS; 3. Endoscopy	Moderate
Portilla, 2015	Spanish	Cross-sectional study	95 CD	A hospital	3D ARU	Patient report	7 (7)	1.3D ARU	High
Albuquerque, 2021	UK	Cohort study	16 CD	A hospital	HBI; PDAI; 3D-EAUS	Patient report; Wexner’s score	4 (25)	1. HR-ARM; 2. Balloon expulsion Test; 3. 3D-EAUS	Moderate
Codes, 2023	Brazil	Cross-sectional study	104 CD	A referral center	HBI; PADI	Patient report; Wexner’s score	51 (49)	1. ARM	High
Chrysos, 2001	Greece	Cross-sectional study	41 CD	A hospital	Histologic Lesions; Endoscopy	Patient report	8 (20)	1. ARM	Moderate

FRI, fatigue rate index; EAUS, endoanal ultrasound; ARM, anorectal manometry; HR-ARM, High-Resolution Anorectal Manometry; ARU, anorectal ultrasonography.