SynthesisFrontiers in medicine2026
Clinical outcomes of different sclerosing agents for hemorrhoids: a network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in medicine, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Injection sclerotherapy is widely used for grade I-III internal hemorrhoids, but evidence comparing multiple sclerosing agents head-to-head is limited. Methods: Pubmed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library, CNKI, Wanfang Data, and grey literature sources were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting cure rate as the primary outcome. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed using Markov chain Monte Carlo simulations. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated, and treatments were ranked using surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) values. Outcomes assessed included cure rate, recurrence rate, patient satisfaction, and operative complications. Results: Sixty-six RCTs were included. Polidocanol foam demonstrated significantly higher cure rates compared with polidocanol liquid (OR = 3.1, 95% CI: 2.3-4.2) and ranked first among all treatments for cure rate and patient satisfaction. It also showed the lowest risk of overall complications (OR = 0.53 vs. polidocanol liquid, 95% CI: 0.22-1.3), with significantly reduced risks of bleeding (OR = 0.4, 95% CI: 0.21-0.9) and rectal stricture (OR < 0.001, 95% CI: <0.001-0.73). XiaoZhiLing, phenol, and 50% dextrose were significantly inferior to polidocanol liquid in cure rate. Subgroup analyses in internal hemorrhoids, grade I/II, and grade I/II/III hemorrhoids consistently supported the superiority of polidocanol foam. Conclusion: Polidocanol foam showed best efficacy among all sclerosing agents for treating hemorrhoids, ranking first in cure rate and patient satisfaction with lowest complication risks, particularly for bleeding and rectal stricture. These findings support polidocanol foam as the preferred sclerosing agent in clinical practice. However, as most included trials had follow-up durations of less than 1 year, the long-term durability of these benefits and the risk of late recurrence remain to be established. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420261379386, PROSPERO CRD420261379386.
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.