Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38017243›Full record

SynthesisScientific reports2023

Comparing closed versus open lateral internal sphincterotomy for management of chronic anal fissure: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised control trials.

Zelalem Asefa, Atalel Fentahun Awedew

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Comparative Analysis of Open and Closed Sphincterotomy for the Treatment of Chronic Anal Fissure: Safety and Efficacy Evaluation.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2024
    Article
  5. 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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Zelalem AsefaDepartment of Surgery, SoM, Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Atalel Fentahun AwedewDepartment of Surgery, SoM, Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. atalel.fentahun@aau.edu.et.
Addis Ababa University · ET

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Chronic anal fissure is one of the most common benign anorectal health conditions, causing significant morbidity, quality of life, and economic loss. Eight randomized controlled trials with a total population size of 1035 were eligible for analysis. Seven studies included both males and female, while one only included females. The majority of randomized controlled trials involved female dominance [54.9% (43.5-66.3)] and posterior midline location [86.1% (95% CI 81.5-90.8%)]. This meta-analysis of randomised control trials found that overall postoperative healing was 90.2%, recurrent anal fissure was 3.7%, and postoperative incontinence was 8.9% after LIS. Even though there was no statistically significant difference, closed lateral internal sphincterotomy (LIS) had higher rates of recurrent anal fissure (RR = 1.73 (95% CI 0.86-3.47, p = 0.90, I2 = 0%) and lower rates of postoperative incontinence rate (RR = 0.60 (95% CI 0.37-0.96, p = 0.76, I2-0) as compared with open LIS. We recommended that closed lateral internal sphincterotomy (LIS) is a safe and effective surgical treatment option for chronic anal fissures.

Indexed as

Fissure in AnoLateral Internal SphincterotomyAnal CanalChronic DiseaseFemaleHumansMaleQuality of LifeRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID38017243
PMCPMC10684486
OpenAlexW4389086902

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.