Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37082684›Full record

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.

Paschalis Gavriilidis, Alan Askari, Efstratios Gavriilidis, Salomone Di Saverio, R Justin Davies, Nicola de'Angelis

Open access · diamondAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 23% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

Paschalis GavriilidisDepartment of Surgery, University Hospitals of Coventry and Warwickshire NHS, Coventry, UK.
Alan AskariCambridge Oesophagogastric Centre, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK.
Efstratios GavriilidisFirst Department of Internal Medicine, University Hospital of Alexandroupolis, Democritus University of Thrace, Alexandroupolis, Greece.
Salomone Di SaverioDepartment of Surgery, San Benedetto del Tronto Hospital, San Benedetto del Tronto, Italy.
R Justin DaviesCambridge Colorectal Unit, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK.
Nicola de'AngelisDepartment of Digestive Surgery, University Hospital Henri Mondor (AP-HP), Créteil, France.
Addenbrooke's Hospital · GBAssistance Publique – Hôpitaux de Paris · FRCambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust · GBDemocritus University of Thrace · GRUniversity Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II)Clinical practice guidelineshaemorrhoidshemorrhoidal disease

Identifiers

PMID37082684
PMCPMC10113081
OpenAlexW4321032974

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.