ReviewAdvanced pharmaceutical bulletin2026
Pharmacological Therapies for Bowel Dysfunction After Colorectal Cancer Surgery: A Systematic Review.
Review in Advanced pharmaceutical bulletin, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Bowel dysfunction frequently occurs in colorectal cancer (CRC) patients following sphincter-preserving surgeries. This review systematically evaluated the evidence on pharmacological therapies for this complication. Methods: A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus in November 2024. Experimental or quasi-experimental studies examining the effects of conventional pharmacological therapies and herbal medicine on stable CRC patients with post-surgical bowel dysfunction were included. Results: Among 8,989 retrieved records, eight studies were eligible. These investigated the effects of serotonin type 3 receptor antagonists (n=3), herbal medicines (n=2, specifically Daikenchuto and modified Baizhu Shaoyao San), diazepam (n=1), Botulinum A toxin injection (n=1), and topical phenylephrine (n=1). Except for phenylephrine, interventions showed varying improvements in stool frequency, incontinence, urgency, or quality of life. Most of the included studies exhibited a high risk of bias. Conclusion: Some interventions appear promising; however, the current evidence is insufficient to guide clinical practice. This review highlights a significant evidence gap and underscores the urgent need for large-scale, rigorous randomized controlled trials to establish definitive therapeutic strategies for this debilitating condition.
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.