Observational studyInternational journal of colorectal disease2026
Effectiveness and safety of 3% polidocanol foam sclerotherapy in hemorrhoidal disease: a multicenter, prospective study.
Observational study in International journal of colorectal disease, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Correspondence for the article titled: "Effectiveness and safety of 3% polidocanol foam sclerotherapy in hemorrhoidal disease: a multicenter, prospective study".International journal of colorectal disease · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo evaluate the effectiveness and safety of 3% polidocanol foam sclerotherapy (PFS) injection under anoscopy in the treatment of hemorrhoidal disease (HD) compared with rubber band ligation (RBL).
methodThis was a multicenter, open-label, prospective, observational study that enrolled 222 patients with Goligher grade I, II, or III HD (internal or mixed), who were treated with 3% PFS or RBL, which depended on the physician's assessment and the patient's willingness. The primary endpoint was the clinical cure rate under anoscopy and clinical symptoms assessment at 4 weeks post-treatment.
resultsA total of 222 patients from 14 centers participated in the study, with 127 patients receiving PFS and 95 patients receiving RBL. Among the effectiveness analysis set (EAS), the clinical cure rate was 74.19% (69/93) in the PFS group and 83.13% (69/83) in the RBL group (P > 0.05). The PFS group showed quicker and better improvement in hemorrhage score post-treatment than the RBL group, with the mean (SD) changes from baseline in hemorrhage score of the two groups (P < 0.001) at 1, 4, and 12 weeks being -3.44 (1.99) vs. -1.70 (2.19), -3.85 (1.80) vs. -2.75 (2.02), and -3.81 (1.84) vs. -2.89 (2.10), respectively. The incidences of adverse events (AEs) were 2.36% (3/127) in the PFS group and 3.16% (3/95) in the RBL group, respectively, and no serious adverse events (SAEs) occurred in both groups.
conclusionPatients treated with PFS showed similar effectiveness and safety as those treated with RBL under anoscopy, and a quick improvement trend in hemorrhage score post-treatment was observed in patients treated with PFS, but it needs further verification.
trial registrationThis study has been registered on the website of Chinese Clinical Trial Registry ( https://www.chictr.org.cn/ ), registration number: ChiCTR2200060325.
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.