ArticleHeliyon2024
The efficacy of topical
Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The topical application of boron has been significantly associated with intensifying wound healing. Using 3% boric acid in deep wounds significantly contributes to wound healing and reduces the duration of hospitalization in the intensive care. The objective of this study was to assess the therapeutic impact of a topical gel containing Methods: In this randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial, we applied a topical gel consisting of Results: Before the intervention, symptom severity (p > 0.05) and anoscopy findings (p = 0.815) were similar between the two groups. Subsequent to the intervention, a majority of patients in the intervention group experienced a reduction in anal itching compared to the placebo group [adjusted mean difference (aMD) 95% CI: -1.98 (-2.2 to -1.8), p = 0.007]. Moreover, resting pain [aMD (95% CI): -1.37 (-1.6 to -1.1), p = 0.015], pain during defecation [aMD (95% CI): -2.19 (-2.4 to -2.0), p = 0.005], feeling a lump in the anus (aMD (95% CI): -0.71 (-1.2 to -0.2), p = 0.011), bleeding during defecation (41.7% vs. 66.9%, p = 0.027), and hemorrhoid degree (p < 0.001) in the intervention group was less than the placebo group. Conclusion: Our findings indicate the effectiveness of the study gel on hemorrhoid symptoms and anoscopy findings in patients.
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.