SynthesisFrontiers in pharmacology2025
Efficacy and safety of topical vs. oral calcium channel blockers for chronic anal fissures: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2025. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Calcium channel blockers (CCBs) are first-line pharmacotherapy for chronic anal fissures (CAF), but the optimal administration route (oral vs. topical) remains unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis compared efficacy and safety of oral vs. topical CCBs for CAF. Methods: PubMed and Embase were systematically searched from inception through February 2025 for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Two reviewers independently performed study selection, quality assessment, and data extraction. Random-effects models were used to pool effect sizes, with sensitivity analyses to assess robustness. The quality of evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach. Results: Four RCTs (279 patients) were included. Topical CCBs significantly reduced unhealed fissure risk vs. oral CCBs (OR = 2.65, 95% CI = 1.50-4.69, moderate certainty evidence), with comparable recurrence rates (based on limited data from 3 studies). Initial side effect analysis showed no difference, but sensitivity analysis excluding a high-bias trial revealed fewer adverse events with topical CCBs (OR = 13.16, 95% CI = 5.05-34.3, moderate certainty evidence). Conclusion: Based on limited evidence, topical CCBs may offer superior healing rates and safety profiles vs. oral formulations for CAF, with similar recurrence rates, though additional high-quality studies are needed to confirm these findings.
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.