Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41089415›Full record

ReviewAsia-Pacific journal of oncology nursing2025

Coping with bowel dysfunction after low anterior resection for rectal cancer: A qualitative synthesis.

Eun Young Kim, Min Jeong Kim, Young Man Kim

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Asia-Pacific journal of oncology nursing, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Eun Young KimDepartment of Nursing, Soonchunhyang University, Cheonan-si, Republic of Korea.
Min Jeong KimDepartment of Nursing, Graduate School, Jeonbuk National University, Jeonju-si, Republic of Korea.
Young Man KimRed Cross College of Nursing, Chung-Ang University, Seoul, Republic of Korea.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: This study synthesized existing qualitative research on patients' experiences of bowel dysfunction following low anterior resection for rectal cancer and examined the strategies they use to cope and adapt to related challenges. Methods: A comprehensive search was conducted across PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, SCOPUS, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library for qualitative studies published up to June 2025, supplemented by reference screening. A meta-ethnographic approach was employed to integrate findings interpretively while preserving the contextual depth of individual studies. Results: Twenty-two studies involving 415 participants were included. Three overarching themes emerged: (1) living with uncertainty, (2) experiencing social isolation and disconnection, and (3) striving to establish a new balance in life. Patients reported unpredictable bowel symptoms that disrupted daily activities, generating uncertainty, social withdrawal, and psychological distress. Despite these challenges, patients gradually adapted through self-care practices, emotional support, and psychological acceptance, which facilitated a shift toward stability and improved quality of life. Conclusions: Bowel dysfunction after low anterior resection imposes substantial physical, psychological, and social challenges on patients. Supporting adaptation requires patient-centered nursing interventions that extend beyond symptom management to provide comprehensive psychosocial support, promote self-care, and enhance long-term well-being. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42024590342.

Indexed as

Colorectal surgeryDefecationMeta-analysisQualitative researchRectal neoplasmsSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID41089415
PMCPMC12517071

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.