Functional constipation in patients with hemorrhoids: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hemorrhoids are common anorectal pathology, with high recurrence rates after surgical treatment. It is hypothesized that high straining forces during paradoxical contractions and inadequate relaxation are causally related to hemorrhoids. This review aimed to assess the coprevalence of functional constipation and dyssynergic defecation in a population with hemorrhoids. Moreover, the effects of rubber band ligation (RBL) were analyzed. Sources included Pubmed, Embase and CENTRAL . Randomized trials, cohort and case-control studies that investigated the prevalence of constipation in patients with hemorrhoids or the prevalence of hemorrhoids in patients with constipation compared to healthy subjects were included. Manometric studies were also eligible. Quality assessment was performed by using the Newcastle Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale. The primary outcome was the prevalence of functional constipation or dyssynergic defecation in patients with hemorrhoids. Nineteen studies were included. Prevalence of constipation was significantly higher in patients with hemorrhoids compared to controls [OR (odds ratio), 2.09; 95% CI (confidence interval), 1.27-3.44]. No significant difference in the prevalence of hemorrhoids between patients with constipation compared to controls was found (OR, 2.37; 95% CI, 0.67-8.44). Anal pressures in patients with hemorrhoids were significantly higher compared to healthy controls in all manometric studies. After RBL, these pressures remained significantly higher in patients with hemorrhoids ( P = 0.001). Functional constipation, dyssynergic defecation and higher basal anal pressures are more prevalent in patients with hemorrhoids compared to controls. Improvement of therapy for functional constipation, especially dyssynergic defecation patterns, might lead to better long-term outcomes and reduce recurrence.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".