SynthesisBMC gastroenterology2025
The efficacy of retrograde and antegrade enemas in the management of low anterior resection syndrome in patients undergoing rectal resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC gastroenterology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Effects of comprehensive nursing intervention on the postoperative gastrointestinal function and complications in patients undergoing endoscopic polypectomy.American journal of translational research · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRectal resection could potentially cause low anterior resection syndrome (LARS). Although recent studies have reported the efficacy of enema against LARS, no systematic review and meta-analysis has been conducted.
methodsA systematic search was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL Complete, Cochrane library and Web of Science. Eligible studies that quantified the effect of enema vs. other approaches on LARS following rectal resection were selected. Meta-analysis was conducted by using RevMan 5.4 software and StataMP 17. Where meta-analysis was not possible, vote counting was performed.
resultsThis study comprised five RCTs with 159 participants and meta-analysis was performed in 4 studies. Compared with the control group, enema reduced LARS score with mean differences of -10.84 (95% CI: -16.71 to -4.98, P = 0.0003). Subgroup analysis based on the type of enema were performed, with three European studies using retrograde enema and one Asian study using antegrade enema, with mean differences of -13.77 (95% CI: -17.97 to -9.57, P < 0.00001) and -4.86 (95% CI: -9.26 to -0.46, P = 0.03), respectively. According to follow-up period, two trials reported short-term effects and the other two investigated medium/long-term effects with mean differences of -14.22 (95% CI: -20.05 to -8.38, P = 0.23) and -7.59 (95% CI: -14.47 to -0.71, P = 0.13), respectively. One study that used antegrade enema was key contributor to the substantial interstudy heterogeneity by the leave-one-out sensitivity analysis. After exclusion of this study, no heterogeneity was found (t
conclusionsEnema, particularly retrograde enema, is effective in managing LARS. However, the effectiveness of antegrade enema deserves further investigation. The short-term effects of enema are more pronounced compared to long-term outcomes. Due to the limited number of included studies, these findings should be taken cautiously. More RCTs on other continents are needed to validate the impact of enema on LARS, as well as to develop standardised protocols to facilitate clinical practice. PROSPERO REGISTRATION: CRD42024539973.
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.