ArticleHeliyon2024
Development and validation of an MRI and clinicopathological factors prediction model for low anterior resection syndrome in anterior resection of middle and low rectal cancer.
Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To validate the predictive power of newly developed magnetic resonance (MR) morphological and clinicopathological risk models in predicting low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) 6 months after anterior resection of middle and low rectal cancer (MLRC). Methods: From May 2018 to January 2021, 236 patients with MLRC admitted to two hospitals (internal and external validation) were included. MR images, clinicopathological data, and LARS scores (LARSS) were collected. Tumor morphology data included longitudinal involvement length, maximum tumor diameter, proportion of tumor to circumference of the intestinal wall, tumor mesorectal infiltration depth, circumferential margin status, and distance between the tumor and anal margins. Pelvic measurements included anorectal angle, mesenterial volume (MRV), and pelvic volume. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression was used to obtain independent risk factors of LARS after anterior resection Then, the prediction model was constructed, expressed as a nomogram, and its internal and external validity was assessed using receiver operating characteristic curves. Results: The uni- and multivariate analysis revealed distance between the tumor and anal margins, MRV, pelvic volume, and body weight as significant independent risk factors for predicting LARS. From the nomogram, the area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity were 0.835, 75.0 %, and 80.4 %, respectively. The AUC, sensitivity, and specificity in the external validation group were 0.874, 83.3 %, and 91.7 %, respectively. Conclusion: This study shows that MR imaging and clinicopathology presented by a nomogram can strongly predict LARSS, which can then individually predict LARS 6 months after anterior resection in patients with MLRC and facilitate clinical decision-making. Clinical relevance statement: We believe that our study makes a significant contribution to the literature. This method of predicting postoperative anorectal function by preoperative measurement of MRV provides a new tool for clinicians to study LARS.
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.