Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36012991›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2022

Low Anterior Resection Syndrome: What Have We Learned Assessing a Large Population?

Audrius Dulskas, Povilas Kavaliauskas, Edgaras Kulikauskas, Edgaras Smolskas, Kornelija Pumputiene, Narimantas E Samalavicius, Joseph W Nunoo-Mensah

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Review
  5. 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 · 2025
    Article
  6. 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 · 2024
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Audrius DulskasDepartment of Abdominal and General Surgery and Oncology, National Cancer Institute, 1 Santariskiu Str., LT-08406 Vilnius, Lithuania.ORCID 0000-0003-3692-8962
Povilas KavaliauskasDepartment of Abdominal and General Surgery and Oncology, National Cancer Institute, 1 Santariskiu Str., LT-08406 Vilnius, Lithuania.
Edgaras KulikauskasUtena Hospital, 3 Aukstakalnio Str., LT-28151 Utena, Lithuania.
Edgaras SmolskasVilnius City Clinical Hospital, 57 Antakalnio Str., LT-10207 Vilnius, Lithuania.
Kornelija PumputieneBaltupiu Family Clinics, 80A Didlaukio Str., LT-08326 Vilnius, Lithuania.
Narimantas E SamalaviciusInstitute of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Vilnius University, LT-03101 Vilnius, Lithuania.
Joseph W Nunoo-MensahKing's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London SE5 9RS, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

anterior resectionbowel dysfunctioncohort studyLARS scorelow anterior resection syndrome scorerectal cancer

Identifiers

PMID36012991
PMCPMC9410299

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.