SynthesisTechniques in coloproctology2025
Transanal irrigation is effective for low anterior resection syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in Techniques in coloproctology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Process of Adapting to Altered Bowel Function in Patients With Rectal Cancer: A Grounded Theory Study.Psycho-oncology · 2026Article
- [Anorectal functional disorders following organ-preserving treatment and resection of rectal cancer].Chirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2026Review
- Management of bowel dysfunction after pelvic surgery for endometriosis.International journal of colorectal disease · 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe therapeutic value of transanal irrigation (TAI) for low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) has not been fully confirmed. This study aims to evaluate the efficiency of TAI in improving bowel function and quality of life (QoL) following sphincter-preserving resections (SPRs) for rectal cancer through a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
methodsThe protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42024598219). PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, CNKI, and WanFang databases were systematically searched for RCTs comparing TAI with conservative treatments for LARS published before December 2024. Outcomes included pooled risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous variables and weighted mean differences (WMDs) for continuous variables, calculated using Review Manager 5.4.1 with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. The I
resultsAmong 123 initially identified studies, six RCTs involving 317 patients were included. Meta-analysis demonstrated that the TAI group exhibited significantly lower LARS scores (WMD = -10.35, 95% CI [-15.92, -4.78], P < 0.01). The TAI group demonstrated significantly better outcomes across all five LARS subscales compared to controls, including flatus incontinence (WMD = -0.92; 95% CI [-1.30, -0.54]; P < 0.01), liquid stool incontinence (WMD = -0.83; 95% CI [-1.07, -0.59]), frequency (WMD = -1.33; 95% CI [-1.95, -0.72]; P < 0.01), stool clustering (WMD = -4.89; 95% CI [-5.90, -3.88]), and urgency (WMD = -5.35; 95% CI [-7.12, -3.58]). There was also a significant difference in Wexner score (WMD = -2.78, 95% CI [-4.13, -1.42], P < 0.01). However, no significant differences were observed in SF-36 mental (WMD = 7.27, 95% CI [-1.61,16.15], P = 0.11) or physical component scores (WMD = 6.97, 95% CI [-1.26,15.19], P = 0.10). Heterogeneity was substantial for LARS score analysis (I
conclusionTAI significantly improves bowel function in patients with LARS, as evidenced by reduced LARS and Wexner scores. However, its impact on QoL remains inconclusive. Large-scale RCTs with extended follow-up periods are warranted to validate long-term clinical benefits.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.