ArticlePediatric surgery international2025
Bowel management outcomes in anorectal malformations: a comparative study between two referral centers in a high- and a low/middle-income country.
Article in Pediatric surgery international, 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.
- Outcomes and revision rates after antegrade continence enema (ACE) appendicostomy in a single-center LMIC paediatric cohort.Pediatric surgery international · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare functional bowel outcomes between patients followed-up at two referral centers in a high-income country and a low/middle-income country after anorectal malformation repair (ARM).
methodsCross-sectional study using Krickenbeck, Rintala and Baylor Continence Scale questionnaires. Patients below three years of age, with developmental delay, or incomplete questionnaires were excluded. Associated malformations, surgical notes, toilet training, treatment and toilet setting were considered. Results were analyzed according to age and type of ARM.
results68 patients from Milan and 65 from Johannesburg were included. Johannesburg population was younger (mean age 10.7 ± 6.1 years old vs 7.1 ± 4.7, p < 0.001). Perineal fistula was the most common ARM type in Milan (32/68, 47%), whereas vestibular in Johannesburg (17/65, 26%). Age at toilet training was younger in Milan (33.4 ± 13.6 months vs 43.9 ± 36.0, p = 0.02). Laxatives were more used in Milan (27/68, 40%), while enemas in Johannesburg (24/65, 37%). Mean total scores were, respectively, 4.9 ± 1.5 and 5.2 ± 1.6 with Krickenbeck (p = 0,16), 14.8 ± 4.2 and 15.5 ± 3.8 with Rintala (p = 0.28), 15.4 ± 9.3 and 12.6 ± 7.6 with BCS (p = 0.06).
conclusionDespite different bowel management programs, outcomes appear similar. We recommend the active participation of health workers in questionnaire's compilation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40536550What 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.