| Title |
Validation of the Japanese Version of the Low Anterior Resection Syndrome Score
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
World Journal of Surgery, February 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00268-018-4519-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Emi Akizuki, Hiroshi Matsuno, Tetsuta Satoyoshi, Masayuki Ishii, Akihiro Usui, Tomomi Ueki, Toshihiko Nishidate, Kenji Okita, Tsunekazu Mizushima, Masaki Mori, Ichiro Takemasa |
| Abstract |
The low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) score is a patient-reported outcome measure to evaluate the severity of bowel dysfunction after rectal cancer surgery by scoring the major symptoms of LARS. The aim of this study was to translate the English version of the LARS score into Japanese and to investigate the validity and reliability of the LARS score. The LARS score was translated in Japanese following current international recommendations. A total of 149 rectal cancer patients completed the LARS score questionnaire and were also asked a single question assessing the impact of bowel function on quality of life (QoL). A total of 136 patients answered the LARS score questionnaire twice. The Japanese LARS score showed high convergent validity, based on its good correlation between the LARS score and QoL (p < 0.001). The LARS score was able to discriminate between patients according to the tumor distance to anal verge (p < 0.001), type of surgery (p < 0.001), and time since surgery (p = 0.001). Patients after ultra-low anterior resection and intersphincteric resection showed especially high scores. The score also had high test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient: 0.87). The Japanese LARS score is a valid and reliable tool for measuring LARS. The LARS score is appropriate for assessments in postoperative bowel function and international comparison. Using this score, patient-reported outcome measures of LARS in Japanese patients can be shared internationally. Additional validation reports from non-English speaking countries can support the LARS score as a worldwide assessment tool for postoperative bowel dysfunction. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Kenya | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 5 | 83% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 6 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 24 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 8% |
| Professor | 2 | 8% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 8% |
| Other | 4 | 17% |
| Unknown | 9 | 38% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 29% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 8% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 14 | 58% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 30 April 2018.
All research outputs
#13,065,845
of 23,025,074 outputs
Outputs from World Journal of Surgery
#2,449
of 4,262 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#210,744
of 446,267 outputs
Outputs of similar age from World Journal of Surgery
#57
of 98 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,025,074 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,262 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.6. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 446,267 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 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 98 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.