Dataset Information

Interventional treatments for prolapsing haemorrhoids: network meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: Multiple treatments for early-moderate grade symptomatic haemorrhoids currently exist, each associated with their respective efficacy, complications, and risks. The aim of this study was to compare the relative clinical outcomes and effectiveness of interventional treatments for grade II-III haemorrhoids. A systematic review was conducted according to PRISMA criteria for all the RCTs published between 1980 and 2020; manuscripts were identified using the MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL databases. Inclusion criteria were RCTs comparing procedural interventions for grade II-III haemorrhoids. Primary outcomes of interest were: symptom recurrence at a minimum follow-up of 6 weeks, postprocedural pain measured on a visual analogue scale (VAS) on day 1, and postprocedural complications (bleeding, urinary retention, and bowel incontinence). After bias assessment and heterogeneity analysis, a Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed. Seventy-nine RCTs were identified, including 9232 patients. Fourteen different treatments were analysed in the network meta-analysis. Overall, there were 59 RCTs (73 per cent) judged as being at high risk of bias, and the greatest risk was in the domain measurement of outcome. Variable amounts of heterogeneity were detected in direct treatment comparisons, in particular for symptom recurrence and postprocedural pain. Recurrence of haemorrhoidal symptoms was reported by 54 studies, involving 7026 patients and 14 treatments. Closed haemorrhoidectomy had the lowest recurrence risk, followed by open haemorrhoidectomy, suture ligation with mucopexy, stapled haemorrhoidopexy, and Doppler-guided haemorrhoid artery ligation (DG-HAL) with mucopexy. Pain was reported in 34 studies involving 3812 patients and 11 treatments. Direct current electrotherapy, DG-HAL with mucopexy, and infrared coagulation yielded the lowest pain scores. Postprocedural bleeding was recorded in 46 studies involving 5696 patients and 14 treatments. Open haemorrhoidectomy had the greatest risk of postprocedural bleeding, followed by stapled haemorrhoidopexy and closed haemorrhoidectomy. Urinary retention was reported in 30 studies comparing 10 treatments involving 3116 participants. Open haemorrhoidectomy and stapled haemorrhoidopexy had significantly higher odds of urinary retention than rubber band ligation and DG-HAL with mucopexy. Nine studies reported bowel incontinence comparing five treatments involving 1269 participants. Open haemorrhoidectomy and stapled haemorrhoidopexy had the highest probability of bowel incontinence. Open and closed haemorrhoidectomy, and stapled haemorrhoidopexy were associated with worse pain, and more postprocedural bleeding, urinary retention, and bowel incontinence, but had the lowest rates of symptom recurrence. The risks and benefits of each treatment should be discussed with patients before a decision is made.

SUBMITTER: Jin JZ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8504447 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionChronic, non-cancer, axial or radicular spinal pain is a common condition associated with considerable socioeconomic burden. Clinicians frequently offer patients various interventional procedures for the treatment of chronic spine pain; however, the comparative effectiveness and safety of available procedures remains uncertain.MethodsWe will conduct a systematic review of randomised controlled trials that explores the effectiveness and harms of interventional procedures for the management of axial or radicular, chronic, non-cancer, spine pain. We will identify eligible studies through a systematic search of Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Web of Science from inception without language restrictions. Eligible trials will: (1) enrol primarily adult patients (≥18 years old) with axial or radicular, chronic, non-cancer, spine pain, (2) randomise patients to different, currently available, interventional procedures or to an interventional procedure and a placebo/sham procedure or usual care, and (3) measure outcomes at least 1 month after randomisation.Pairs of reviewers will independently screen articles identified through searches and extract information and assess risk of bias of eligible trials. We will use a modified Cochrane instrument to evaluate risk of bias. We will use frequentist random-effects network meta-analyses to assess the relative effects of interventional procedures, and five a priori hypotheses to explore between studies subgroup effects. We will use the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to assess the certainty in evidence for each outcome, including direct, indirect and network estimates.Ethics and disseminationNo research ethics approval is required for this systematic review, as no confidential patient data will be used. We will disseminate our findings through publication in a peer-reviewed journal and conference presentations, and our review will support development of a BMJ Rapid Recommendations providing contextualised clinical guidance based on this body of evidence.Prospero registration numberCRD42020170667.

Project description:The goal of nonrestorative or non- and microinvasive caries treatment (fluoride- and nonfluoride-based interventions) is to manage the caries disease process at a lesion level and minimize the loss of sound tooth structure. The purpose of this systematic review and network meta-analysis was to summarize the available evidence on nonrestorative treatments for the outcomes of 1) arrest or reversal of noncavitated and cavitated carious lesions on primary and permanent teeth and 2) adverse events. We included parallel and split-mouth randomized controlled trials where patients were followed for any length of time. Studies were identified with MEDLINE and Embase via Ovid, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Pairs of reviewers independently conducted the selection of studies, data extraction, risk-of-bias assessments, and assessment of the certainty in the evidence with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Data were synthesized with a random effects model and a frequentist approach. Forty-four trials (48 reports) were eligible, which included 7,378 participants and assessed the effect of 22 interventions in arresting or reversing noncavitated or cavitated carious lesions. Four network meta-analyses suggested that sealants + 5% sodium fluoride (NaF) varnish, resin infiltration + 5% NaF varnish, and 5,000-ppm F (1.1% NaF) toothpaste or gel were the most effective for arresting or reversing noncavitated occlusal, approximal, and noncavitated and cavitated root carious lesions on primary and/or permanent teeth, respectively (low- to moderate-certainty evidence). Study-level data indicated that 5% NaF varnish was the most effective for arresting or reversing noncavitated facial/lingual carious lesions (low certainty) and that 38% silver diamine fluoride solution applied biannually was the most effective for arresting advanced cavitated carious lesions on any coronal surface (moderate to high certainty). Preventing the onset of caries is the ultimate goal of a caries management plan. However, if the disease is present, there is a variety of effective interventions to treat carious lesions nonrestoratively.

Project description:Different neoadjuvant therapy regimens are available for rectal cancer, but the relative effects are controversial. The aim of the present network meta-analysis (NMA) was to estimate the relative efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant therapies for resectable rectal cancer. MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials were searched for publications dated from 1946 up to June 2018. The present study included randomized clinical trials that compared treatments for resected rectal cancer: Surgery alone, surgery preceded by neoadjuvant radiotherapy (RT), neoadjuvant chemotherapy (CT) or neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT). Direct pairwise comparisons and NMA were conducted. A total of 23 randomized controlled trials were included in the present study. RT had an overall survival (OS) benefit when compared with surgery alone [HR (hazard ratio), 0.89; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.82-0.97; quality of evidence, high]. All three neoadjuvant regimens were associated with lower local recurrence (LR) when compared with surgery alone [RT: odds ratio (OR), 0.44; 95% CI, 0.35-0.65; quality of evidence, high; CRT: OR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.23-0.56; quality of evidence, low and CT: OR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.11-1.00; quality of evidence, low]. There were no significant differences in OS and LR between CRT and RT (OS: OR, 1.10); 95% CI, 0.93-1.20; LR: OR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.61-1.10). Ranking probabilities indicated that CRT was the best strategy for local control, with a surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) of 78.78%. Patients treated with RT had improved disease-free survival compared with those treated with surgery alone (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.64-1.00; quality of evidence, low). Neoadjuvant RT or CRT did not significantly improve distant metastases compared with surgery alone (RT: OR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.69-1.10 and CRT: OR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.47-1.10). CRT had an improved pathological complete response rate compared with RT (OR, 4.90; 95% CI, 21.80-17.00; quality of evidence, low). No significant difference for the risk of anastomotic leak between each treatment was observed in the NMA. In conclusion, RT decreased the LR and improved OS compared with surgery alone for resected rectal cancer. CRT was the best neoadjuvant therapy analyzed and CT was likely the second best for all outcomes based on SUCRA. However, these findings were limited by overall low quality of evidence.

Dataset Information

Interventional treatments for prolapsing haemorrhoids: network meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets