ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2022
Low Anterior Resection Syndrome: What Have We Learned Assessing a Large Population?
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A systematic review of preoperative radiological factors associated with the development of low anterior resection syndrome (LARS).Updates in surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Incremental Predictive Value of Conventional MRI Pelvimetry for Major Low Anterior Resection Syndrome After Rectal Cancer Surgery.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Association Between Radiotherapy (±Chemotherapy) and the Severity of Low Anterior Resection Syndrome After Rectal Cancer Surgery: Does Radiotherapy Separate Risk?Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Observational
- Ileostoma as a promising tool in pathophysiological study and clinical intervention: a review from bench to beside.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Review
- Long-term bowel function following delayed coloanal anastomosis: Analysis of a multicentric cohort study (GRECCAR).Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland · 2025Article
- Patient-reported outcomes after treatment for rectal cancer-A prospective nationwide study.Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland · 2024Article
- The effect of robotic surgery on low anterior resection syndrome in patients with lower rectal cancer: a propensity score-matched analysis.Surgical endoscopy · 2024Article
- Validity assessment of the POLARS score tool in the prediction of post rectal cancer surgery LARS score in a population-based Swedish cohort.BMJ open gastroenterology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Our goal was to assess the rate of symptoms commonly included in LARS score in a large general population. The study was based on a population-based design. We disseminated LARS scores through community online platforms and general practitioners throughout Lithuania. We received 8183 responses to the questionnaire. There were 142 (1.74%) participants who were excluded for lack of information. There were 6100 (75.9%) females and 1941 (24.1%) males. After adjusting for sex and age, male participants had a significant average score of 18.4 (SD ± 10.35) and female 20.3 (SD ± 9.74) p < 0.001. There were 36.4% of participants who had minor LARS symptoms, and 14.2% who had major LARS symptoms. Overall, major LARS-related symptoms were significantly related to previous operations: 863 participants in the operated group (71.7%), and 340 in the non-operated group (28.3%; p0.001). In 51−75-year-old patients, major LARS was significantly more prevalent with 22.7% (p < 0.001) and increasing with age, with a higher incidence of females after the age of 75. After excluding colorectal and perineal procedures, the results of multivariate logistic regression analysis indicated the use of neurological drugs and gynaecological operations were independent risk factors for major LARS−odd ratio of 1.6 (p = 0.018, SI 1.2−2.1) and 1.28 (p = 0.018, SI 1.07−1.53), respectively. The symptoms included in the LARS score are common in the general population, and there is a variety of factors that influence this, including previous surgeries, age, sex, comorbidities, and medication. These factors should be considered when interpreting the LARS score following low anterior resection and when considering treatment options preoperatively.
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.