Observational studySurgery today2026
Prevalence of and risk factors for low anterior resection syndrome based on the international consensus definition: a multicenter cross-sectional observational study.
Observational study in Surgery today, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Incremental Predictive Value of Conventional MRI Pelvimetry for Major Low Anterior Resection Syndrome After Rectal Cancer Surgery.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Association Between Radiotherapy (±Chemotherapy) and the Severity of Low Anterior Resection Syndrome After Rectal Cancer Surgery: Does Radiotherapy Separate Risk?Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposesThe symptoms of low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) are diverse, and its ambiguous definition has made estimating its prevalence difficult. In 2018, an international consensus proposed a new LARS definition based on eight symptoms and consequences. We conducted this study to evaluate the prevalence of LARS, using this new definition (LARS-ND), and to identify its risk factors.
methodsThis multicenter, cross-sectional study surveyed patients who underwent curative resection for rectal tumors between 2020 and 2022 at 10 institutions. A one-time questionnaire based on the new LARS definition was distributed. Outcomes included LARS-ND prevalence and risk factors.
resultsA total of 343 patients responded (response rate: 86.6%). The prevalence of LARS-ND was 72.5%, with no significant differences across groups with different follow-up durations. The most frequent symptom and consequence were "emptying difficulties" (93.3%) and "the need for strategies and compromises" (47.5%). Among patients categorized as having "no LARS" by the conventional score, 25% were diagnosed with LARS-ND. Multivariate analysis identified younger age (< 70 years; OR = 2.28) and short anastomosis distance (≤ 5 cm; OR = 1.96) as risk factors.
conclusionsThe prevalence of LARS-ND was high, and the new LARS definition identified patients with symptoms previously missed by the conventional score. Younger age and a lower anastomosis level appear to be risk factors for LARS-ND.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41348318What 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.