The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Fiber for the Treatment of Hemorrhoids Complications: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the impact of laxatives on a wide range of symptoms in patients with symptomatic hemorrhoids. METHODS: We searched using the following sources: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and CENTRAL, BIOSIS, AMED, Papers First and Proceedings; study authors, industry, and experts in the field. We included all published and unpublished parallel group randomized controlled trials comparing any type of laxative to placebo or no therapy in patients with symptomatic hemorrhoids. Two reviewers independently screened studies for inclusion, retrieved all potentially relevant studies, and extracted data on study population, intervention, prespecified outcomes, and methodology. RESULTS: Seven trials randomized 378 patients to fiber or a nonfiber control. Studies were of moderate quality for most outcomes. Meta-analyses using random effects models suggested that fiber has an apparent beneficial effect. The risk of not improving/persisting symptoms decreased by 47% in the fiber group (RR = 0.53, 95% CI 0.38-0.73) and the risk of bleeding by 50% (RR = 0.50, 95% CI 0.28-0.89). Studies with multiple follow-ups, usually at 6 wk and at 3 months, showed consistent results over time. Results are also compatible with large treatment effects in prolapse, pain, and itching, but even in the pooled analyses confidence intervals were wide and compatible with no effect (RR = 0.79, 95% CI 0.37-1.67; RR = 0.33, 95% CI 0.07-1.65; and RR = 0.71, 95% CI 0.24-2.10, respectively). One study suggested a decrease in recurrence. Results showed a nonsignificant trend toward increases in mild adverse events in the fiber group (RR = 6.0, 95% CI 0.57-64.8). CONCLUSIONS: Trials of fiber show a consistent beneficial effect for symptoms and bleeding in the treatment of symptomatic hemorrhoids.
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 · cited 1×
“Validity Assessment We extracted methodological information for the assessment of internal validity (20): existence and method of generation of the randomization schedule, and method of allocation concealment (21); blinding of caregivers and outcomes assessors; number and reasons of patients lost to follow-up; and use…”
MethodPharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review
Lexchin, J., Bero, L. A., Djulbegovic, B., & Clark, O. (2003) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.326.7400.1167 · Cited by 2,147
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
Metadata
- Authors
- Alonso-Coello, P., Mills, E., Heels-Ansdell, D., Lopez-Yarto, M., Zhou, Q., Johanson, J. F., & Guyatt, G.
- Venue
- The American Journal of Gastroenterology
- Published
- 2006-01
- Volume
- 101
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 181-188
- ISSN
- 0002-9270 (ISSN-L)
- 1572-0241
- OpenAlex
- W2139024299
- Cited by
- 209
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 1.14
- 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: Fiber for the Treatment of Hemorrhoids Complications: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1572-0241.2005.00359.x
- The paper
- Alonso-Coello, P., Mills, E., Heels-Ansdell, D., Lopez-Yarto, M., Zhou, Q., Johanson, J. F., & Guyatt, G. (2006). Fiber for the Treatment of Hemorrhoids Complications: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. The American Journal of Gastroenterology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1572-0241.2005.00359.x
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.