ArticleBMJ open2026
Comparing the effectiveness and safety of different surgical procedures for haemorrhoids: a protocol for systematic evaluation and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.
Article in BMJ open, 2026. 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
introductionHaemorrhoidal disease affects 25-40% of adults worldwide and constitutes a primary reason for outpatient colorectal consultations. Surgical management is essential for grade III-IV or treatment-refractory cases. Numerous procedures have emerged, including Milligan-Morgan open haemorrhoidectomy, Ferguson closed haemorrhoidectomy, stapled haemorrhoidopexy, Doppler-guided haemorrhoidal artery ligation, transanal haemorrhoidal dearterialisation and laser haemorrhoidoplasty. However, randomised controlled trials and conventional meta-analyses report conflicting results on efficacy, postoperative pain, recurrence rates and complications such as bleeding, stenosis and incontinence. Although network meta-analyses exist, an updated synthesis is needed because outcomes and follow-up vary across trials. This protocol aims to determine the most effective and safest haemorrhoid interventions (office-based and operative) through systematic review and network meta-analysis, providing evidence-based guidance for clinical practice and guideline development. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The Cochrane Library, Web of Science, MEDLINE, Embase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, VIP, SinoMed and Wanfang databases will be searched from inception to January 2025, limited to English or Chinese publications. Randomised controlled trials evaluating haemorrhoid interventions/procedures for haemorrhoidal disease will be included, with outcomes encompassing cure rate, recurrence, complications, postoperative pain, wound-healing time, anal function and operative duration. Risk of bias will be assessed using RoB 2. Pairwise meta-analyses will be conducted in RevMan; network meta-analysis will employ Bayesian frameworks in GeMTC or R, incorporating consistency evaluation, node-splitting and surface under the cumulative ranking curve for treatment ranking. Subgroup analyses (haemorrhoid grade, follow-up duration), sensitivity analyses and publication bias assessments will be performed. Evidence certainty will be graded using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach and the Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis (CINeMA) framework. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: As only published data will be used, ethical approval is not required. Results will be disseminated via peer-reviewed publication and conference presentations. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD420251053697.
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.