The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Quality of life in colorectal cancer: Stoma vs. nonstoma patients
Abstract
PURPOSE: The bowel and sexual function of colorectal cancer patients undergoing either sphincter-saving or sphincter-sacrificing surgical procedures may be impaired. A legitimate question is how these different surgical techniques affect the patients' quality of life. METHODS: Seventeen studies were identified that compared at least one of four aspects of patient functioning (i.e., physical, psychologic, social, and sexual) between stoma patients and nonstoma patients. RESULTS: Although the literature does not yield entirely consistent findings, some long-term effects of surgery can be identified: 1) both patient groups are troubled by frequent or irregular bowel movements and diarrhea; 2) stoma patients report higher levels of psychologic distress than do nonstoma patients; 3) although both stoma patients and nonstoma patients report restrictions in their level of social functioning, such problems are more prevalent among patients with a colostomy; 4) sexual functioning of male and female stoma patients is consistently more impaired than that of male and female patients with intact sphincters. Results of the current review were compared with those of other, related areas. CONCLUSIONS: Although nonstoma patients generally fare better than do stoma patients, they also suffer from physical impairments induced by sphincter-saving procedures (e.g., impaired bowel and sexual function). These impairments may become more prevalent as ultralow anastomosis is more frequently applied, resulting in bowel and sexual dysfunction and related psychologic distress. Well-designed studies are needed that examine whether quality-of-life benefits are to be gained by use of ultralow anastomosis compared with colostomy.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Aaronson, N. K., Ahmedzai, S., Bergman, B., Bullinger, M., Cull, A., Duez, N. J., Filiberti, A., Flechtner, H., Fleishman, S. B., Haes, J. C. J. M. D., et al. (1993) · JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute · doi:10.1093/jnci/85.5.365 · Cited by 16,005
Self-citationThe functional assessment of cancer therapy scale: development and validation of the general measure
Cella, D. F., Tulsky, D. S., Gray, G., Sarafian, B., Linn, E., Bonomi, A., Silberman, M., Yellen, S. B., Winicour, P., & Brannon, J. (1993) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.1993.11.3.570 · Cited by 6,020
Cited by
Prevalence of Male and Female Sexual Dysfunction Is High Following Surgery for Rectal Cancer
Hendren, S. K., O'Connor, B. I., Liu, M., Asano, T., Cohen, Z., Swallow, C. J., MacRae, H. M., Gryfe, R., & McLeod, R. S. (2005) · Annals of Surgery · doi:10.1097/01.sla.0000171299.43954.ce · Cited by 578
Grumann, M. M., Noack, E. M., Hoffmann, I. A., & Schlag, P. M. (2001) · Annals of Surgery · doi:10.1097/00000658-200102000-00001 · Cited by 314
Taylor, C., Richardson, A., & Cowley, S. (2010) · International Journal of Nursing Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2009.12.008 · Cited by 60
Metadata
- Authors
- Sprangers, M. A. G., Taal, B. G., Aaronson, N. K., & te Velde, A.
- Venue
- Diseases of the Colon & Rectum
- Published
- 1995-04
- Volume
- 38
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 361-369
- ISSN
- 0012-3706 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2017068990
- Cited by
- 454
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 8.33
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.