ReviewCureus2022
The Efficacy of Sitz Baths as Compared to Lateral Internal Sphincterotomy in Patients with Anal Fissures: A Systematic Review.
Review in Cureus, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Global Management of Anal Fissure: Results from the ISUCRS 2022 Snapshot Audit.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- 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
12 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
An anal fissure is a common condition that affects patients of all ages. Its clinical presentation is a sharp pain on defecation with or without blood. It is treated by conservative or surgical means. This study aims to assess the efficacy of a sitz bath as compared to lateral internal sphincterotomy in the treatment of anal fissures. The search strategy used keywords related to the topic of study. Three databases were used: PubMed, Google Scholar, and Science Direct. A total of 551 articles were screened. A quality assessment check was done on the articles leaving 11 articles. Four aspects of sitz bath outcomes were evaluated in the articles. In terms of analgesia, articles showed conflicting evidence. However, the overall evidence supports the use of sitz baths for their analgesic properties. In terms of healing, most articles had similar recovery rates of around 80%. Much of the research supported the use of sitz baths as the primary treatment to heal acute fissures. When compared to lateral internal sphincterotomy, the recovery rates of lateral internal sphincterotomy are superior to those of conservative treatment, including sitz baths. However, studies showed incontinence as a side effect of lateral internal sphincterotomy, and no studies reported side effects from the sitz baths. To conclude, the results of the articles support the use of sitz baths to treat anal fissures. Sitz baths have been found to have analgesic properties, as well as a good healing time. But, compared to lateral internal sphincterotomy, there is a significant difference in the healing rate at the end stage of treatment, lateral internal sphincterotomy is found to be superior. With regards to the side effects, none have been reported from using a sitz bath.
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.