ArticlePloS one2025
Electroacupuncture versus sham electroacupuncture in treating low anterior resection syndrome after rectal cancer surgery: Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.
Article in PloS one, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeLow anterior resection syndrome (LARS), a frequent postoperative complication of rectal resection, has been shown to significantly impact patients' quality of life. Electroacupuncture (EA), a non-pharmaceutical treatment, ameliorates gastrointestinal symptoms and promotes bowel movement. However, high-quality clinical evidence is lacking. This study aimed to determine whether EA can improve LARS symptoms compared with sham electroacupuncture (SA). STUDY DESIGN AND
methodsThis multicenter, randomized, sham-controlled clinical trial will be carried out across the outpatient clinics of three tertiary medical centers in China. A total of 136 patients with LARS who meet the inclusion criteria will be randomly allocated, in equal proportions (1:1), to either the EA or SA group. Each patient will undergo treatment three times weekly during the first four weeks and twice-weekly sessions over the subsequent four weeks. After the intervention, a 24-week follow-up period will be conducted. The primary outcome is the change in the LARS score from baseline to the end of week 8. Secondary outcomes include changes in the LARS score at other time points, response rate of patients showing reduced defecation dysfunction, subjective distress related to intestinal symptoms, Wexner Diarrhea score, Bristol Bowel Diary, EORTC-QLQ-C30 Quality of Life Questionnaire, and Fecal Incontinence Quality of Life Scale. DISCUSSION: This study will provide evidence of EA from multiple perspectives, investigate its potential application in LARS after rectal cancer surgery, and guide the development of therapy tailored to meet specific individual health needs. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval for this study was granted by the Ethics Committee of Beijing University of Chinese Medicine (No. 2024BZYLL0402). All participants enrolled in the trial will provide written informed consent prior to randomization. Results will be prepared for submission to a peer-reviewed academic journal.
trial registrationITMCTR2024000195. International Traditional Medicine Clinical Trial Registry (http://itmctr.ccebtcm.org.cn/zh-CN/Home/ProjectView?pid=badb9af5-248b-4818-b3b6-25002f0fa0d5).
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.