ArticleInternational journal of colorectal disease2026
Reconsidering the LARS score: a cross-sectional descriptive study exploring complementary screening approaches for low anterior resection syndrome.
Article in International journal of colorectal disease, 2026. 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.
- Global research trends in robotic surgery for rectal cancer: a bibliometric and science-mapping analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe LARS score is a practical tool to screen for bowel dysfunction after rectal cancer surgery. However, clinical experience suggests that it may overlook relevant symptoms and/or overestimate impact in some patients. This study aimed to explore whether the International Consensus Definition of LARS complements the LARS score in identifying patients with bowel dysfunction.
methodsWe conducted a cross-sectional study including patients treated for rectal cancer across two hospitals between January 2021 and December 2024. Demographic and clinical data were collected retrospectively. Functional outcomes were assessed during outpatient follow-up using both the LARS score and the International Consensus Definition criteria.
resultsSixty-two patients were included. According to the LARS score, 39 (62.9%) had "no LARS", 10 (16.1%) "minor LARS" and 13 (21%) "major LARS". Using the International Consensus Definition, 24 (38.7%) met the criteria for LARS. Nine patients (14.5%) were classified differently by the two tools. Five patients classified as "no LARS" by the LARS score met the International Consensus Definition due to unpredictable bowel function and emptying difficulties with a reported impact on daily life. In contrast, four patients with "minor or major LARS" did not meet the International Consensus Definition criteria because no consequences were reported.
conclusionIn this exploratory cross-sectional cohort, the International Consensus Definition did not identify substantially more patients than the LARS score but provided complementary information by linking symptoms to their perceived consequences. Combining both tools may offer a more comprehensive appraisal of LARS until newer multidimensional instruments become available.
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.