ReviewPatient preference and adherence2024
A Systematic Review of Quality of Life in Patients with Short Bowel Syndrome and Their Caregivers.
Review in Patient preference and adherence, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Efficacy and safety of teduglutide in children with short bowel syndrome: a narrative review.Pediatric surgery international · 2026Review
- Assessing the health-related quality of life and clinical effect in children with short bowel syndrome receiving teduglutide treatment.BMC pediatrics · 2026Article
- Short bowel syndrome-associated intestinal failure patient experience: A mixed-method study leveraging an online patient community.Nutrition in clinical practice : official publication of the American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition · 2025Article
- Dietary Interventions for Short Bowel Syndrome in Adults.Nutrients · 2025Review
- Updates in Intestinal Failure Management.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Effectiveness, safety, and quality of life outcomes of teduglutide treatment in adult patients with short bowel syndrome-associated intestinal failure: A systematic literature review of real-world studies.Intestinal Failure (New York, N.Y.)Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Understanding the quality of life and the factors that influence it for patients with short bowel syndrome (SBS) and their caregivers is of utmost importance in order to enhance their well-being. Therefore, This study aimed to provide a comprehensive understanding of the impact of SBS on patients and their caregivers, as well as its associated factors, by synthesizing the available evidence. Methods: A systematic review of the literature was done using PubMed, Embase databases, CNKI, and ISPOR conference papers. Included articles were manually searched to identify any other relevant studies. Quality was assessed using appropriate Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tools. Results: This review included 16 studies, comprising 15 observational studies and 1 randomized controlled trial. The findings revealed that the QoL of patients with SBS was lower than that of the general population regarding physical functioning and psychological domain. Meanwhile, caregivers experienced challenges in maintaining their QoL. The QoL of SBS patients was found to be influenced by various factors such as treatment, age, sex, stoma, and small intestine length. Among them, the treatment is the most noteworthy factor that can be effectively improved through external interventions. Conclusion: While numerous studies have provided insights into the compromised QoL experienced by individuals with SBS and their caregivers, there remains a scarcity of large-sample quantitative investigations examining the determinants of QoL. The existing body of literature on caregivers is also notably deficient.
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.