Fiber for the Treatment of Hemorrhoids Complications: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
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 We included all published and unpublished parallel group randomized controlled trials comparing any type of laxative to placebo or no therapy in patients with symptomatic hemorrhoids.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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.030 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".