SynthesisInternational journal of colorectal disease2020
Scoring systems as outcomes assessment of the treatments for haemorrhoidal disease: a systematic review of the literature.
Synthesis in International journal of colorectal disease, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Non-excisional laser therapies for hemorrhoidal disease: a systematic review of the literature.Lasers in medical science · 2021Pooled it
- Cap-assisted endoscopic sclerotherapy for bleeding-predominant grade III hemorrhoids: efficacy and risk factor analysis focusing on two dimensions of bleeding score.Techniques in coloproctology · 2026Observational
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe comparison between haemorrhoidal treatments is still unclear. Attempts have been made to adopt a unifying postoperative scoring system and thus ensure adequate comparison between clinical trials. We aimed to systematically review the available outcome scores of haemorrhoidal treatment.
methodsMEDLINE/Pubmed, Web of science, Embase and Cochrane were searched from database implementation until the December 6th 2019. All studies describing or referencing a score to assess haemorrhoidal disease treatment were included. Likert scale alone, incontinence score alone, general assessment of quality of life or scores developed for other proctologic disorders were excluded. The main outcome measures were validation of the scores and correlation of the score items to the core outcome set for haemorrhoidal disease developed by the European Society of Coloproctology.
resultsFrom the 633 records initially screened, 22 studies were included: 8 original articles describing a scoring system and 14 referencing a previously described scoring system. Only 1 score was validated by an external prospective cohort. All the scores evaluated the symptoms of haemorrhoidal disease. No score integrated the disease recurrences or patient's satisfaction. Scores values tended to decrease postoperatively.
conclusionsThe scores described by Gerjy et al. and by Shanmugan et al. are available questionnaires, which have been validated and used in various studies. These scores might help researchers for comparative studies between treatment modalities and optimize haemorrhoids treatment.
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.