Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 332

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 36 of the 36 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Bowel dysfunction after low anterior resection with and without neoadjuvant therapy for rectal cancer: a population‐based cross‐sectional study

Bregendahl, S., Emmertsen, K. J., Lous, J., Laurberg, S.·2013·Colorectal Disease

Abstract

Aim: Bowel dysfunction was assessed after low anterior resection with and without neoadjuvant therapy (NT) for rectal cancer using a novel symptom‐based scoring system correlated with quality of life. Method: We identified all patients who underwent curative resection for rectal cancer in D enmark between 2001 and 2007. A questionnaire on bowel function and quality of life, including the recently validated low anterior resection syndrome score (LARS score; range 0–42) was administered to recurrence‐free patients in 2009. We used multivariate analysis to examine the association between major LARS (LARS score ≥ 30) and a number of patient and treatment‐related factors. Results: Of 1087 eligible patients, 980 agreed to participate and, of these, 938 were included in the analysis. Major LARS was observed in 41%. The use of NT (OR = 2.48; 95% CI: 1.73–3.55), long‐course chemoradiotherapy vs short‐course radiotherapy (OR = 0.90; 95% CI: 0.44–1.87), total mesorectal excision (TME) vs partial mesorectal excision (PME) (OR = 2.31; 95% CI: 1.69–3.16), anastomotic leakage (OR = 2.06; 95% CI: 0.93–4.55), age ≤ 64 years at surgery (OR = 1.90; 95% CI: 1.43–2.51) and female gender (OR = 1.35; 95% CI 1.02–1.79) were associated with major LARS. No association was found between major LARS and the time since surgery (OR = 0.78; 95% CI: 0.59–1.04) or neorectal reconstruction (colonic pouch vs straight colorectal or side‐to‐end anastomosis (OR = 0.96; 95% CI: 0.63–1.46). Conclusion: Severe bowel dysfunction is a frequent long‐term outcome after resection for rectal cancer. Use of NT, regardless of a long‐ or short‐course protocol, and TME (compared with PME) are strong independent risk factors for major LARS.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/codi.12244

Cites

36 of 36 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 36 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Bregendahl, S., Emmertsen, K. J., Lous, J., & Laurberg, S.
Venue
Colorectal Disease
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2013-09
Volume
15
Issue
9
Pages
1130-1139
ISSN
  • 1462-8910 (ISSN-L)
  • 1463-1318
OpenAlex
W2046231807
Cited by
332
References
36
FWCI
9.17
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.