Title: The Efficacy of Retrograde and Antegrade Enemas in the Management of Low Anterior
Resection Syndrome in Patients Undergoing Rectal Resection: A Systematic Review and Meta-
analysis
Version: 0 Date: 30 Mar 2025
Reviewer's report:
The present systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrates methodological rigor; however,
the substantial heterogeneity among the control groups hinders its generalizability. Specifically,
the control groups included interventions such as intersphincteric resection only (Alvandipour
et al.), standard of care (Meurette et al.), conservative treatment (Pieniowski et al.), supportive
treatment (Rosen et al.), and percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation (Enriquez-Navascues et al.).
This variability significantly weakens the comparability and validity of the results.
Title: The Efficacy of Retrograde and Antegrade Enemas in the Management of Low Anterior
Resection Syndrome in Patients Undergoing Rectal Resection: A Systematic Review and Meta-
analysis
Version: 0 Date: 30 Mar 2025
Reviewer's report:
The present systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrates methodological rigor; however,
the substantial heterogeneity among the control groups hinders its generalizability. Specifically,
the control groups included interventions such as intersphincteric resection only (Alvandipour
et al.), standard of care (Meurette et al.), conservative treatment (Pieniowski et al.), supportive
treatment (Rosen et al.), and percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation (Enriquez-Navascues et al.).
This variability significantly weakens the comparability and validity of the results.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: The Efficacy of Retrograde and Antegrade Enemas in the Management of Low Anterior
Resection Syndrome in Patients Undergoing Rectal Resection: A Systematic Review and Meta-
analysis
Version: 0 Date: 30 Mar 2025
Reviewer's report:
The present systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrates methodological rigor; however,
the substantial heterogeneity among the control groups hinders its generalizability. Specifically,
the control groups included interventions such as intersphincteric resection only (Alvandipour
et al.), standard of care (Meurette et al.), conservative treatment (Pieniowski et al.), supportive
treatment (Rosen et al.), and percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation (Enriquez-Navascues et al.).
This variability significantly weakens the comparability and validity of the results.
assistant