Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30725242›Full record

ArticleTechniques in coloproctology2019

A validated severity score for haemorrhoids as an essential prerequisite for future haemorrhoid trials.

M J Lee, J Morgan, A J M Watson, G L Jones, S R Brown

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Techniques in coloproctology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

23 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Patient reported outcome measure-haemorrhoidal impact and satisfaction score (PROM-HISS): Development, reliability and construct validity.Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland · 2022
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

M J LeeDepartment of Surgery, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals, Northern General Hospital, Sheffield, UK.
J MorganDepartment of Psychology, School of Social Sciences, Leeds Beckett University, Leeds, UK.
A J M WatsonDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, Raigmore Hospital, Inverness, UK.
G L JonesDepartment of Psychology, School of Social Sciences, Leeds Beckett University, Leeds, UK.
S R BrownDepartment of Surgery, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals, Northern General Hospital, Sheffield, UK. stevebrown@doctors.org.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0980-2793

Funding

Department of Health 10/57/46
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is a lack of standardised outcomes for haemorrhoidal disease making comparison between trials difficult. A need for a very well validated severity score is essential to facilitate meta-analysis of comparative studies, enabling evidence-based clinical practice.

methodsThe Hubble trial provides a large cohort of patients with haemorrhoidal disease randomised to rubber band ligation (RBL) or haemorrhoidal artery ligation. The haemorrhoid severity score (HSS) was collected on each patient at baseline, 6 weeks and 1 year after intervention. This allows for the responsiveness of the HSS instrument to be examined and compared with a more specific instrument, the Vaizey incontinence score (also collected). Responsiveness was tested using four methods (effect size, standardised response means (SRM), significance of change, and responsiveness statistic).

resultsThe four tests of responsiveness demonstrated that the HSS was more responsive to changes in the patient's health status following both of the interventions compared to the Vaizey questionnaire. For example, between baseline and 6 weeks, the RBL intervention effect size scores and SRM calculations indicated a non-significant small amount of change (0.20 and 0.16 respectively). However, using the HSS, the effect size and SRM demonstrated a large magnitude of change (1.12 and 1.01, respectively) which was significant. Similar results were observed at 1 year. Significance of change scores and the index of responsiveness were also higher for the HSS questionnaire than the Vaizey across both treatment modalities.

conclusionsThe HSS is a highly responsive tool for the detection of changes in haemorrhoid symptoms. It should form an essential patient-reported outcome tool for future studies on haemorrhoidal disease.

Indexed as

Patient Reported Outcome MeasuresSeverity of Illness IndexAdultAgedClinical Trials as TopicFemaleHealth StatusHemorrhoidsHumansMaleMiddle AgedReproducibility of ResultsTreatment OutcomeHaemorrhoidPatient-reported outcomePsychometrics

Identifiers

PMID30725242
PMCPMC6394714

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.