ArticleThe Malaysian journal of medical sciences : MJMS2015
A Double-Blind Randomized Trial Comparing the Effectiveness and Safety of Nifedipine and Isosorbide Dinitrate in Chronic Anal Fissure.
Article in The Malaysian journal of medical sciences : MJMS, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- A systematic review and meta-analysis of the efficacy of topical sphincterotomy treatments for anal fissure.International journal of colorectal disease · 2022Pooled it
- Isosorbide and nifedipine for Chagas' megaesophagus: A systematic review and meta-analysis.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2018Pooled it
- A systematic review and meta-analysis of the treatment of anal fissure.Techniques in coloproctology · 2017Pooled it
- Beneficial Extracardiac Effects of Cardiovascular Medications.Current cardiology reviews · 2022Review
- Could local antibiotics be included in the treatment of acute anal fissure?Turkish journal of surgery · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundChronic anal fissure is a common disease that is accompanied with pain and bleeding during defecation. Various surgical and non-surgical methods have been offered for the treatment of this condition. The aim of this randomised clinical study was to compare the effectiveness and safety of nifedipine and isosorbide dinitrate (ISDN) in the treatment of chronic anal fissure.
methodsThis double-blind clinical trial study was performed on patients aged 20 to 60 years old in 2012 to 2013. The samples with a primary diagnosis of chronic anal fissure were enrolled from the patients admitted to public treatment at the educational Imam Ali Clinic, Shahrekord, Iran by researchers and general surgery specialists. The patients were randomised into two groups: nifedipine 0.3% (n = 35) or ISDN 0.2% (n = 35) applied three times a day for three weeks. The patients were examined on the 7th, 14th, and 21st days of treatment, and the symptoms including bleeding, pain, and healing status, as well as the side effects of the drugs, were assessed. Pain was evaluated using a visual analogue scale (VAS).
resultsAfter 21 days of follow-up, complete healing was achieved in 77.1% (n = 27) of patients in the nifedipine group and 51.4% (n = 18) in the ISDN group (
conclusionIn view of the findings on healing status and pain in the patients, nifedipine may be significantly more effective in the treatment of chronic anal fissure than ISDN.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28239267PMC5295740W2914655374What 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.