ReviewAnnals of translational medicine2023
Evaluation of the current guidelines for the management of haemorrhoidal disease using the Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation II instrument.
Review in Annals of translational medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Postoperative Perianal Abscess and Concomitant Anorectal Fistula: An Extremely Rare Complication After Emergency Transanal Hemorrhoidal Dearterialization With Mucopexy for Hemorrhoidal Disease.Case reports in surgery · 2025Article
- Guideline on haemorrhoids: AGREE-II-Criteria can be applied in different ways?Annals of translational medicine · 2023Article
- Limitations concerning evaluation of the current guidelines using the Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation II.Annals of translational medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Haemorrhoids are a very common disease and many professional societies have produced guidelines for their treatment. The aim of this study is to appraise the quality of the existing guidelines in the management of haemorrhoids. Methods: A systematic search of the literature was conducted in the EMBASE, Google Scholar, Cochrane library, and PubMed databases. The quality of guidelines was independently appraised using the Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument by five of the authors. Results: Six guidelines of varying quality were identified and included in this study. The highest scoring guidelines were the SICCR (Società Italiana di Chirurgia Colorectale, which is Italian Society of Colorectal Surgery), ESCP (European Society of Coloproctology) and ASCRS (American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons) guidelines, scoring 86% each overall. There was considerable variability across not just the studies but across the different domains. The highest scoring domains were domain VI: editorial independence (median =95% across all studies) and domain I: Scope & Purpose (85%). The lowest scores were observed in domain V: Applicability (48%) and domain II: Stakeholder Involvement (41%). Only three of the six gained unanimous support for their use, whilst two of the guidelines were unanimously declared not suitable for clinical use. Conclusions: With the notable exception of three guidelines (SICCR, ESCP and ASCRS), the general quality of haemorrhoid guidelines is poor. Stakeholder (especially patient) involvement and instructions on how to implement recommendations is lacking from the majority of guidelines. This is an area that requires urgent attention if we are to improve guidelines in haemorrhoid management.
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.