Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland · 2013
Systematic review of the use of topical diltiazem compared with glyceryltrinitrate for the nonoperative management of chronic anal fissure.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяМетаанализСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Sajid M S, Whitehouse P A, Sains P, Baig M K
Аннотация
AIM: The study analyzed clinical trials investigating the effectiveness of diltiazem (DTZ) and glyceryltrinitrate (GTN) for the nonsurgical management of chronic anal fissure (CAF).
METHOD: Randomized trials on the effectiveness of DTZ and GTN were analyzed systematically using RevMan(®) where combined outcome was expressed as risk ratio (RR).
RESULTS: Seven randomized controlled trials that included 481 patients were analyzed. Two-hundred and thirty-eight patients were treated with DTZ and 243 patients were treated with GTN. There was significant heterogeneity [Tau(2) = 0.24, χ2 = 13.16, d.f. = 6 (P < 0.05); I(2) = 54%] among the included trials. In the random-effects model, DTZ was associated with a lower incidence of side effects (RR = 0.48; 95% CI = 0.27, 0.86; z = 2.46; P < 0.01), headache (RR = 0.39; 95% CI = 0.24, 0.66; z = 3.54; P < 0.004) and recurrence (RR = 0.68; 95% CI = 0.52, 0.89; z = 2.77; P < 0.006) of CAF. Both GTN and DTZ were equally effective (RR = 1.10; 95% CI = 0.90, 1.34; z = 0.92; P = 0.36) in the nonsurgical management of CAF.
CONCLUSION: This systematic review of seven trials validates and strengthens the finding of a previously published meta-analysis of two randomized trials. Both DTZ and GTN are equally effective in the management of CAF. However, DTZ is associated with a lower incidence of headache and recurrent fissure. Therefore DTZ should be the preferred first line of treatment for CAF.
METHOD: Randomized trials on the effectiveness of DTZ and GTN were analyzed systematically using RevMan(®) where combined outcome was expressed as risk ratio (RR).
RESULTS: Seven randomized controlled trials that included 481 patients were analyzed. Two-hundred and thirty-eight patients were treated with DTZ and 243 patients were treated with GTN. There was significant heterogeneity [Tau(2) = 0.24, χ2 = 13.16, d.f. = 6 (P < 0.05); I(2) = 54%] among the included trials. In the random-effects model, DTZ was associated with a lower incidence of side effects (RR = 0.48; 95% CI = 0.27, 0.86; z = 2.46; P < 0.01), headache (RR = 0.39; 95% CI = 0.24, 0.66; z = 3.54; P < 0.004) and recurrence (RR = 0.68; 95% CI = 0.52, 0.89; z = 2.77; P < 0.006) of CAF. Both GTN and DTZ were equally effective (RR = 1.10; 95% CI = 0.90, 1.34; z = 0.92; P = 0.36) in the nonsurgical management of CAF.
CONCLUSION: This systematic review of seven trials validates and strengthens the finding of a previously published meta-analysis of two randomized trials. Both DTZ and GTN are equally effective in the management of CAF. However, DTZ is associated with a lower incidence of headache and recurrent fissure. Therefore DTZ should be the preferred first line of treatment for CAF.