ArticleCureus2022
Prevalence and Risk Factors of Low Anterior Resection Syndrome in Epithelial Ovarian Cancer Surgery.
Article in Cureus, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background In this study, we aimed to determine the prevalence and risk factors of low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) in epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) surgery. Methodology A descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted at the Gynecologic Oncology Section of the Department of Surgical Oncology, Shaukat Khanum Memorial Cancer Hospital & Research Centre, Lahore, Pakistan. Using non-probability consecutive sampling technique, all patients who underwent cytoreductive surgery involving low anterior resection for EOC between January 2016 and January 2021 were included. Patients were assessed for LARS symptoms using the LARS score, along with its risk factors. Descriptive statistics, that is, continuous variables were expressed as the median and interquartile range, while categorical variables were expressed as frequencies and percentages. The LARS score was categorized according to a two-tier model with "no or minor LARS" and "major LARS." Univariate analyses were performed by the chi-square tests providing odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals to identify risk factors for major LARS. Results Overall, 95% of cases had LARS scores that fell in "no or minor LARS," while only 5% of cases had "major LARS." Univariate analyses relieved no statistically significant association between the occurrence of major LARS and any of the risk factors. Conclusions The prevalence of LARS was 5%, and no risk factors were associated with major LARS in our study population.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.