ArticleAnnals of surgical treatment and research2025
Evaluation of health-related quality of life and performance in intestinal transplant and rehabilitation patients: a cross-sectional study.
Article in Annals of surgical treatment and research, 2025. 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.
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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: We aimed to evaluate health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in intestinal failure (IF) patients after different modes of intestinal rehabilitation. Methods: HRQoL was assessed using the generic 36-item Short Form Survey (SF-36, ver. 2) and visual analogue scale (VAS) in 6 different areas: diet, sleep, gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms, diarrhea, musculoskeletal pain, and other symptoms. Results: Twenty-two patients completed the questionnaires, of which 7 had received intestinal transplant (ITx), 9 were continuing home total parenteral nutrition (HPN), and 6 had tapered off total parenteral nutrition (TPN). SF-36 physical component summary scores were highest in the ITx group (median, 65.6; interquartile range [IQR], 31.6-80.3) compared to the HPN (median, 48.4; IQR, 44.7-66.3) or tapered group (median, 54.2; IQR, 45.2-61.6). Mental component summary scores were lowest in the ITx group (median, 48.8; IQR, 37.1-63.6), compared to the TPN (median, 60.2; IQR, 41.6-78.5) or tapered group (median, 51.0; IQR, 48.8-56.0). Differences were not significant in all items of the SF-36. VAS scores showed that patients in the ITx group showed the best results in diet (0.9), gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms (1.4), and musculoskeletal pain (2.4). There was a significant difference in sleep (P = 0.036), with the ITx (1.43) and HPN groups (1.33) showing better outcomes compared with the tapered group (4.67). Patients in the tapered group showed the least favorable results in all performance areas, except GI symptoms. Conclusion: SF-36 did not show a significant difference between the ITx, HPN, and tapered groups, but VAS showed a significant difference in sleep between groups. Further studies, including serial data, will allow a better understanding of the effects of different modes of intestinal rehabilitation.
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.