The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Meta-analysis of flavonoids for the treatment of haemorrhoids
Abstract
Background: The aim of the study was to evaluate the impact of flavonoids on those symptoms important to patients with symptomatic haemorrhoids. Methods: A comprehensive search strategy was used. All published and unpublished randomized controlled trials comparing any type of flavonoid to placebo or no therapy in patients with symptomatic haemorrhoids were included. Two reviewers independently screened studies for inclusion, retrieved all potentially relevant studies and extracted data. Results: Fourteen eligible trials randomized 1514 patients. Studies were of moderate quality and showed variability in the results with potential publication bias. Meta-analyses using random-effects models suggested that flavonoids decrease the risk of not improving or persisting symptoms by 58 per cent (relative risk (RR) 0·42 (95 per cent confidence interval (c.i.) 0·28 to 0·61)) and showed an apparent reduction in the risk of bleeding (RR 0·33 (95 per cent c.i. 0·19 to 0·57)), persistent pain (RR 0·35 (95 per cent c.i. 0·18 to 0·69)), itching (RR 0·65 (95 per cent c.i. 0·44 to 0·97)) and recurrence (RR 0·53 (95 per cent c.i. 0·41 to 0·69)). Conclusion: Limitations in methodological quality, heterogeneity and potential publication bias raise questions about the apparent beneficial effects of flavonoids in the treatment of haemorrhoids.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations
(2004) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.328.7454.1490 · Cited by 8,477
Self-citationAssessing the quality of controlled clinical trials
Jüni, P., Altman, D. G., & Egger, M. (2001) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.323.7303.42 · Cited by 3,309
Pogue, J. M., & Yusuf, S. (1997) · Controlled Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/s0197-2456(97)00051-2 · Cited by 415
Cited by
What is ‘quality of evidence’ and why is it important to clinicians?
Guyatt, G. H., Oxman, A. D., Kunz, R., Vist, G. E., Falck-Ytter, Y., & Schünemann, H. J. (2008) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.39490.551019.be · Cited by 3,250
Self-citationGRADE guidelines: 4. Rating the quality of evidence—study limitations (risk of bias)
Guyatt, G. H., Oxman, A. D., Vist, G., Kunz, R., Brozek, J., Alonso-Coello, P., Montori, V., Akl, E. A., Djulbegovic, B., & Falck-Ytter, Y. (2011) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.07.017 · Cited by 2,798
Self-citationGRADE guidelines 6. Rating the quality of evidence—imprecision
Guyatt, G. H., Oxman, A. D., Kunz, R., Brozek, J., Alonso-Coello, P., Rind, D., Devereaux, P. J., Montori, V. M., Freyschuss, B., Vist, G., et al. (2011) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.01.012 · Cited by 2,693
Self-citationGRADE guidelines: 7. Rating the quality of evidence—inconsistency
Guyatt, G. H., Oxman, A. D., Kunz, R., Woodcock, J., Brozek, J., Helfand, M., Alonso-Coello, P., Glasziou, P., Jaeschke, R., Akl, E. A., et al. (2011) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.03.017 · Cited by 2,320
Self-citationGRADE guidelines: 5. Rating the quality of evidence—publication bias
Guyatt, G. H., Oxman, A. D., Montori, V., Vist, G., Kunz, R., Brozek, J., Alonso-Coello, P., Djulbegovic, B., Atkins, D., Falck-Ytter, Y., et al. (2011) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.01.011 · Cited by 1,819
Self-citationGRADE guidelines: 13. Preparing Summary of Findings tables and evidence profiles—continuous outcomes
Guyatt, G. H., Thorlund, K., Oxman, A. D., Walter, S. D., Patrick, D., Furukawa, T. A., Johnston, B. C., Karanicolas, P., Akl, E. A., Vist, G., et al. (2013) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.08.001 · Cited by 772
Self-citationGuyatt, G., Oxman, A. D., Sultan, S., Brozek, J., Glasziou, P., Alonso-Coello, P., Atkins, D., Kunz, R., Montori, V., Jaeschke, R., et al. (2013) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.01.006 · Cited by 762
Self-citationCompleting ‘Summary of findings’ tables and grading the certainty of the evidence
Schünemann, H. J., Higgins, J. P., Vist, G. E., Glasziou, P., Akl, E. A., Skoetz, N., Guyatt, G. H., & on behalf of the Cochrane GRADEing Methods Group (formerly Applicability and Recommendations Methods Group) and the Cochrane Statistical Methods Group (2019) · Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions · doi:10.1002/9781119536604.ch14 · Cited by 669
Self-citationHemorrhoids: From basic pathophysiology to clinical management
Lohsiriwat, V. (2012) · World Journal of Gastroenterology · doi:10.3748/wjg.v18.i17.2009 · Cited by 640
Metadata
- Authors
- Alonso-Coello, P., Zhou, Q., Martinez-Zapata, M. J., Mills, E., Heels-Ansdell, D., Johanson, J. F., & Guyatt, G.
- Venue
- British Journal of Surgery
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2006-05-31
- Volume
- 93
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 909-920
- ISSN
- 0007-1323 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2168
- OpenAlex
- W2064509332
- Cited by
- 169
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 0.74
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
