ReviewSurgery open science2025
Systematic review and meta-analysis of Transanal Opening of Intersphincteric Space (TROPIS) versus conventional treatments for anal fistula.
Review in Surgery open science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Response to "Comment on the systematic review of TROPIS for anal fistula".Surgery open science · 2026Article
- Comment on the systematic review of TROPIS for anal fistula.Surgery open science · 2026Article
- Why it is not a good idea to perform a meta-analysis comprising only randomized controlled trials in complex anal fistula?Updates in surgery · 2026Article
- Why Transanal Opening of Intersphincteric Space (TROPIS) is effective in high complex anal fistula?Surgery open science · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Transanal Opening of Intersphincteric Space (TROPIS) has emerged as a promising surgical approach for anal fistula management over recent years. This meta-analysis comprehensively evaluates the comparative efficacy and safety of TROPIS versus conventional treatments through systematic analysis of 24 clinical studies involving 2813 patients. Through systematic searches across 7 major biomedical databases (including PubMed, EMBASE, and Chinese repositories) from inception to March 2024, we identified comparative studies assessing TROPIS against six established interventions: incision-thread-drawing, seton placement, LIFT, EAFR, fistulotomy, and incision-suture techniques. Pooled analysis demonstrated TROPIS achieved superior clinical outcomes, with a 3.15-fold higher total efficacy rate (95 % CI 1.22-8.13,
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.