ArticleAnnals of medicine and surgery (2012)2016
Are we following an algorithm for managing chronic anal fissure? A completed audit cycle.
Article in Annals of medicine and surgery (2012), 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trends in Treatment for Hemorrhoids, Fistula, and Anal Fissure: Go Along the Current Trends.Journal of the anus, rectum and colon · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAnal fissure is one of the commonest proctological diseases with considerable national variation in sequential treatment. We aimed to audit our compliance of chronic anal fissure (CAF) management with national guidance provided by the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland (ACPGBI).
methodsWe retrospectively audited patients presenting to outpatient clinics with CAF over a 6-month period. Using electronic patient records, notes and clinic letters, we compared their management with ACPGBI algorithm. A prospective re-audit was then performed.
resultsForty-one patients were included in the analysis (59% male). Sixty-eight percent (n = 28/41) of patients were appropriately started on conservative dietary therapy, of whom only 7.1% (n = 2/28) had treatment success. Eighty-nine percent (n = 25/28) were then appropriately treated with either topical diltiazem 2% or GTN 0.4%. Overall, 43.9% (n = 18/41) of all patients' entire management strategy adhered to the ACPGBI guidelines. In total, 48.8% (n = 20/41) patients had surgical treatment (excluding Botox), of which only 15% (n = 3/20) had undergone ACPGBI-compliant management. After local dissemination of results and education, the re-audit of 20 patients showed significant improvement in adherence to the guidelines (43.9% vs. 95%; P = 0.0001).
conclusionsTopical creams were the most successful treatments (50%; n = 9/18) in ACPGBI-compliant strategies. Importantly, these data suggests that compliance with the ACPGBI algorithm leads to healing without surgery in 83.3% (n = 15/18) of patients, compared to 26.1% (n = 6/23) with non-compliant methods (P = 0.0004). This highlights the benefit of early conservative and medical management of CAF, before attempting surgery.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.