Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33683503›Full record

SynthesisTechniques in coloproctology2021

Rubber band ligation versus haemorrhoidectomy for the treatment of grade II-III haemorrhoids: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

L Dekker, I J M Han-Geurts, H D Rørvik, S van Dieren, W A Bemelman

Open access · hybridAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Techniques in coloproctology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
5.0field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 35 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Observational
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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 at 2 institutions in 5 countries.

L Dekker *Department of Surgery, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Location AMC, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. l.dekker22@amsterdamumc.nl.ORCID 0000-0001-8092-7196
I J M Han-Geurts *Department of Surgery, Proctos Clinic, Bilthoven, The Netherlands.
H D Rørvik *Department of Surgery, Holbæk Hospital, Holbæk, Denmark.
S van Dieren *Department of Surgery, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Location AMC, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
W A Bemelman *Department of Surgery, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Location AMC, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
University Medical Center · USHaukeland University Hospital · NO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe aim of this study was to review clinical outcome of haemorrhoidectomy and rubber band ligation in grade II-III haemorrhoids.

methodsA systematic review was conducted. Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, Clinicaltrials.gov, and the WHO International Trial Registry Platform were searched, from inception until May 2018, to identify randomised clinical trials comparing rubber band ligation with haemorrhoidectomy for grade II-III haemorrhoids. The primary outcome was control of symptoms. Secondary outcomes included postoperative pain, postoperative complications, anal continence, patient satisfaction, quality of life and healthcare costs were assessed. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed.

resultsThree hundred and twenty-four studies were identified. Eight trials met the inclusion criteria. All trials were of moderate methodological quality. Outcome measures were diverse and not clearly defined. Control of symptoms was better following haemorrhoidectomy. Patients had less pain after rubber band ligation. There were more complications (bleeding, urinary retention, anal incontinence/stenosis) in the haemorrhoidectomy group. Patient satisfaction was equal in both groups. There were no data on quality of life and healthcare costs except that in one study patients resumed work more early after rubber band ligation.

conclusionsHaemorrhoidectomy seems to provide better symptom control but at the cost of more pain and complications. However, due to the poor quality of the studies analysed/it is not possible to determine which of the two procedures provides the best treatment for grade II-III haemorrhoids. Further studies focusing on clearly defined outcome measurements taking patients perspective and economic impact into consideration are required.

Indexed as

Fecal IncontinenceHemorrhoidectomyHemorrhoidsHumansLigationQuality of LifeRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicComplicationsHaemorrhoidectomyHaemorrhoidsReinterventionRubber band ligation

Identifiers

PMID33683503
PMCPMC8124052
OpenAlexW3135653593

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.