↓ Skip to main content

Treatment possibilities for low anterior resection syndrome: a review of the literature

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Colorectal Disease, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
49 Mendeley
Title
Treatment possibilities for low anterior resection syndrome: a review of the literature
Published in
International Journal of Colorectal Disease, January 2018
DOI 10.1007/s00384-017-2954-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Audrius Dulskas, Edgaras Smolskas, Inga Kildusiene, Narimantas E. Samalavicius

Abstract

Up to 80% of patients after low anterior resection, experience (low) anterior resection syndrome (ARS/LARS). However, there is no standard treatment option currently available. This systemic review aims to summarize treatment possibilities for LARS after surgical treatment of rectal cancer in the medical literature. Embase, PubMed, and the Cochrane Library were searched using the terms anterior resection syndrome, low anterior resection, colorectal/rectal/rectum, surgery/operation, pelvic floor rehabilitation, biofeedback, transanal irrigation, sacral nerve stimulation, and tibial nerve stimulation. All English language articles presenting original patient data regarding treatment and outcome of LARS were included. We focused on the effects of different treatment modalities for LARS. The Jadad score was used to assess the methodological quality of trials. The quality scale ranges from 0 to 5 points, with a score ≤ 2 indicating a low quality report, and a score of ≥ 3 indicating a high quality report. Twenty-one of 160 studies met the inclusion criteria, of which 8 were reporting sacral nerve stimulation, 6 were designed to determine pelvic floor rehabilitation, 3 studies evaluated the effect of transanal irrigation, 2-percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation, and the rest of the studies assessed probiotics and 5-HT3 receptor antagonists for LARS in patients who had undergone rectal resection. All except one study were poor quality reports according to the Jadad score. LARS treatment still carries difficulties because of a lack of well-conducted, randomized multicenter trials. Well-performed randomized controlled trials are needed.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 49 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 20%
Other 8 16%
Student > Master 6 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 12%
Unspecified 6 12%
Other 13 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 29 59%
Unspecified 8 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 14%
Computer Science 1 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Other 3 6%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 February 2018.
All research outputs
#3,248,286
of 13,186,940 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Colorectal Disease
#127
of 1,063 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#101,585
of 349,185 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Colorectal Disease
#13
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,186,940 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,063 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 349,185 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.