ArticleBMC surgery2025
Comparative effectiveness and recurrence rates of endoscopic sclerotherapy, ligation, and combined therapy for grades I-III internal hemorrhoids.
Article in BMC surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cap-assisted endoscopic sclerotherapy for bleeding-predominant grade III hemorrhoids: efficacy and risk factor analysis focusing on two dimensions of bleeding score.Techniques in coloproctology · 2026Observational
- Early hemodynamic changes following endoscopic sclerotherapy for hemorrhoidal disease assessed by transperineal ultrasound and their relationship with clinical outcomes.International journal of colorectal disease · 2026Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to evaluate the comparative effectiveness, safety, and recurrence rates of endoscopic sclerotherapy (ES), endoscopic rubber band ligation (RBL), and combined ligation - sclerotherapy (CT) for grades I - III internal hemorrhoids.
methodsA retrospective analysis was conducted on patients who underwent endoscopic minimally-invasive treatment for internal hemorrhoids at Wuhu First People's Hospital from January 2020 to December 2024. Patients were divided into ES, RBL, and CT groups. Safety was evaluated by recording post-procedural pain and adverse events. Efficacy was assessed within 3 months post-treatment, and recurrence was defined as symptom reappearance > 3 months post-treatment. Patient satisfaction was also recorded.
resultsA total of 253 patients were included (168 males, 85 females; mean age 46.2 ± 12.8 years), with 107 in the ES group, 122 in the RBL group, and 24 in the CT group. Hemorrhoid grade distribution was 68 cases (26.9%) of Grade I, 112 cases (44.2%) of Grade II, and 73 cases (28.9%) of Grade III. In terms of efficacy, for all grades combined, the efficacy rate was 90.6% (95/107) for ES, 92.6% (113/122) for RBL, and 95.8% (23/24) for CT. CT showed the highest efficacy, especially for grade III hemorrhoids (95.0% [19/20]). Regarding safety, ES had a lower proportion of severe pain (6.5% [7/107]). Adverse events had low rates (bleeding: 4.2-6.6%; fever: 2.8-4.2%) with no significant inter-group differences. Patient satisfaction rates were 84.1% (90/107) for ES, 82.0% (100/122) for RBL, and 83.3% (20/24) for CT, with no substantial variation. For recurrence rates, CT had the lowest rate (4.3% [1/23]), followed by RBL (9.7% [11/113]) and ES (11.6% [11/95]), particularly evident in higher-grade hemorrhoids.
conclusionEndoscopic treatments, especially CT, are effective and relatively safe for grades I - III internal hemorrhoids. CT shows promise in terms of efficacy and recurrence prevention, especially for more severe cases.
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.