6
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Risk factors for severe low anterior resection syndrome in patients with rectal cancer undergoing sphincter‑preserving resection: A systematic review and meta‑analysis

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          The present study aimed to evaluate the incidence and risk factors of severe low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) in patients with rectal cancer undergoing sphincter-preserving resection, and to provide the clinical basis and reference for the treatment of rectal cancer and the prevention of LARS. Studies on the incidence and risk factors for severe LARS in patients with rectal cancer undergoing sphincter-preserving resection were searched using PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Scopus and Web of Science, according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. After evaluating the study quality and extracting relevant data, RevMan 5.2 and STATA software were used to conduct a meta-analysis. A total of 12 articles were considered eligible for the present meta-analysis. Within these articles, there were 3,877 cases of sphincter-preserving resection for rectal cancer and 1,589 cases of severe LARS; the incidence of severe LARS was 40.99%. The results of the meta-analysis revealed that sex [female; odds ratio (OR), 6.54; 95% CI, 3.63–11.76; Z, 6.27; P<0.00001], radiotherapy and chemotherapy (OR, 3.45; 95% CI, 2.29–5.21; Z, 5.91; P<0.00001), total mesorectal excision (TME; OR, 4.39; 95% CI, 3.32–5.79; Z, 10.41; P<0.00001), and distance between tumor and anal margin (OR, 2.74; 95% CI, 0.86–8.72; Z, 1.70; P<0.00001) may be the risk factors for severe LARS.

          Related collections

          Most cited references39

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews

          The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Newcastle-Ottawa Scale: comparing reviewers’ to authors’ assessments

            Background Lack of appropriate reporting of methodological details has previously been shown to distort risk of bias assessments in randomized controlled trials. The same might be true for observational studies. The goal of this study was to compare the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) assessment for risk of bias between reviewers and authors of cohort studies included in a published systematic review on risk factors for severe outcomes in patients infected with influenza. Methods Cohort studies included in the systematic review and published between 2008–2011 were included. The corresponding or first authors completed a survey covering all NOS items. Results were compared with the NOS assessment applied by reviewers of the systematic review. Inter-rater reliability was calculated using kappa (K) statistics. Results Authors of 65/182 (36%) studies completed the survey. The overall NOS score was significantly higher (p < 0.001) in the reviewers’ assessment (median = 6; interquartile range [IQR] 6–6) compared with those by authors (median = 5, IQR 4–6). Inter-rater reliability by item ranged from slight (K = 0.15, 95% confidence interval [CI] = −0.19, 0.48) to poor (K = −0.06, 95% CI = −0.22, 0.10). Reliability for the overall score was poor (K = −0.004, 95% CI = −0.11, 0.11). Conclusions Differences in assessment and low agreement between reviewers and authors suggest the need to contact authors for information not published in studies when applying the NOS in systematic reviews.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found

              The multidisciplinary management of rectal cancer

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Oncol Lett
                Oncol Lett
                OL
                Oncology Letters
                D.A. Spandidos
                1792-1074
                1792-1082
                January 2024
                22 November 2023
                22 November 2023
                : 27
                : 1
                : 30
                Affiliations
                [1 ]The First Clinical Medical College, Nanjing University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Nanjing, Jiangsu 210023, P.R. China
                [2 ]Department of General Surgery, Jiangsu Provincial Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine Affiliated to Nanjing University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Nanjing, Jiangsu 210029, P.R. China
                Author notes
                Correspondence to: Dr Xin-Xin Liu, Department of General Surgery, Jiangsu Provincial Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine Affiliated to Nanjing University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, 155 Hanzhong Road, Qinhuai, Nanjing, Jiangsu 210029, P.R. China, E-mail: 20210444@ 123456njucm.edu.cn
                Article
                OL-27-1-14163
                10.3892/ol.2023.14163
                10722524
                38108080
                48870115-cb4d-41b6-86f0-a88cf326d08c
                Copyright: © Xu et al.

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.

                History
                : 17 January 2023
                : 04 September 2023
                Funding
                Funded by: Jiangsu Postgraduate Practice and Innovation Plan
                Award ID: SJCX22_0742
                Funded by: Hubei Chen Xiaoping Science and Technology Development Fund ‘Huai'er Special Fund for Cancer Prevention and Treatment Research’ in 2020
                Award ID: CXPJJH12000002-202035
                The present study was supported by the Jiangsu Postgraduate Practice and Innovation Plan (grant no. SJCX22_0742) and the Hubei Chen Xiaoping Science and Technology Development Fund ‘Huai'er Special Fund for Cancer Prevention and Treatment Research’ in 2020 (grant no. CXPJJH12000002-202035).
                Categories
                Articles

                Oncology & Radiotherapy
                rectal cancer,low anterior resection syndrome,sphincter-preserving resection,total mesorectal excision

                Comments

                Comment on this article