ReviewJournal of the anus, rectum and colon2025
Diagnosis and Treatment of Low Anterior Resection Syndrome.
Review in Journal of the anus, rectum and colon, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Therapeutic strategies for low anterior resection syndrome: an umbrella review of systematic reviews.International journal of colorectal disease · 2025Pooled it
- Anorectal substructure dosimetry and low anterior resection syndrome after neoadjuvant radiotherapy for rectal cancer: an exploratory analysis.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2026Article
- Understanding the patient perspective in low anterior resection syndrome: which symptoms matter most?Surgery today · 2026Article
- Long-term electroacupuncture for low anterior resection syndrome in postoperative rectal cancer patients: case reports.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Defecation disorders following rectal resection have long been overlooked as an inevitable surgical complication due to the lack of established diagnostic criteria or definitions. However, these disorders have been recently termed low anterior resection syndrome (LARS), which is a defecation disorder that occurs following rectal resection and impairs the patient's quality of life (QOL). The LARS score developed by Emmertsen et al., which is a patient-reported outcome measure to evaluate the severity of bowel dysfunction following rectal surgery by scoring the major symptoms of LARS, facilitates the diagnosis and assessment of LARS and enables international comparison and validation through the use of validated scores generated according to the international standards. Based on comparisons with other evaluation instruments, the use of the LARS score is strongly recommended internationally for LARS screening in patients following rectal resection. Recent findings have indicated that multiple pathophysiological changes, including reservoir function and evacuation of the neorectum, anal sphincter function, negative impact of a diverting stoma, autonomic denervation, and radiotherapy, are involved in the etiology of LARS. Due to the lack of established treatments and prevention of LARS, a suggested treatment chart for patients with LARS was presented in the Management Guidelines for Low Anterior Resection Syndrome (MANUEL) project. Future surgical treatment should focus not only on the radical cure of cancer and safety of treatment but also on the maintenance and improvement of QOL, with particular attention to the preservation of function. Particularly for rectal cancer, surgeons must formulate treatment plans that consider the prevention and treatment of 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.