The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Comparison of hemorrhoidal treatment modalities: A meta-analysis
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to assess whether any method of hemorrhoid therapy has been shown to be superior in randomized, controlled trials. METHOD: A meta-analysis was performed of all randomized, controlled trials assessing two or more treatment modalities for symptomatic hemorrhoids. Outcome variables included response to therapy, need for further therapy, complications, and pain. RESULTS: A total of 18 trials were available for analysis. Hemorrhoidectomy was found to be significantly more effective than manual dilation of the anus (P = 0.0017), with less need for further therapy (P = 0.034), no significant difference in complications (P = 0.60), but significantly more pain (P < 0.0001). Patients undergoing hemorrhoidectomy had a better response to treatment than did patients treated with rubber band ligation (P = 0.001), although complications were greater (P = 0.02) as was pain (P < 0.0001). Rubber band ligation was better than sclerotherapy in response to treatment for all hemorrhoids (P = 0.005) as well as for hemorrhoids stratified by grade (Grades 1 to 2; P = 0.007; Grade 3 hemorrhoids, P = 0.042), with no difference in the complication rate (P = 0.35). Patients treated with sclerotherapy (P = 0.031) or infrared coagulation (P = 0.0014) were more likely to require further therapy than those treated with rubber band ligation, although pain was greater after rubber band ligation (P = 0.03 for sclerotherapy; P < 0.0001 for infrared coagulation). CONCLUSION: Rubber band ligation is recommended as the initial mode of therapy for Grades 1 to 3 hemorrhoids. Although hemorrhoidectomy showed better response rates, it is associated with more complications and pain than rubber band ligation, thus should be reserved for patients who fail to respond to rubber band ligation.
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
Meta-analysis in clinical trials
DerSimonian, R., & Laird, N. (1986) · Controlled Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2 · Cited by 39,552
Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions
Fleiss, J. L., Levin, B., & Paik, M. C. (2003) · Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics · doi:10.1002/0471445428 · Cited by 18,646
Meta-Analytic Procedures for Social Research
Rosenthal, R. (1991) · doi:10.4135/9781412984997 · Cited by 4,635
Freiman, J. A., Chalmers, T. C., Smith, H., & Kuebler, R. R. (1978) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm197809282991304 · Cited by 1,628
Cited by
Hemorrhoids: From basic pathophysiology to clinical management
Lohsiriwat, V. (2012) · World Journal of Gastroenterology · doi:10.3748/wjg.v18.i17.2009 · Cited by 640
Stapled versus conventional surgery for hemorrhoids
Lumb, K. J., Colquhoun, P. H. D., Malthaner, R., & Jayaraman, S. (2006) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd005393.pub2 · Cited by 258
Metadata
- Authors
- MacRae, H. M., & McLeod, R. S.
- Venue
- Diseases of the Colon & Rectum
- Published
- 1995-07
- Volume
- 38
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 687-694
- ISSN
- 0012-3706 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2016550207
- Cited by
- 497
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 1.67
- 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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Comparison of hemorrhoidal treatment modalities: A meta-analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/bf02048023
- The paper
- MacRae, H. M., & McLeod, R. S. (1995). Comparison of hemorrhoidal treatment modalities: A meta-analysis. Diseases of the Colon & Rectum. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02048023
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.