Warning: fopen(/home/virtual/colon/journal/upload/ip_log/ip_log_2024-11.txt): failed to open stream: Permission denied in /home/virtual/lib/view_data.php on line 95 Warning: fwrite() expects parameter 1 to be resource, boolean given in /home/virtual/lib/view_data.php on line 96 Comments on “Laser hemorrhoidoplasty versus conventional hemorrhoidectomy for grade II/III hemorrhoids: a systematic review and meta-analysis”
Skip Navigation
Skip to contents

Ann Coloproctol : Annals of Coloproctology

OPEN ACCESS
SEARCH
Search

Articles

Page Path
HOME > Ann Coloproctol > Volume 39(5); 2023 > Article
Letter to the Editor
Anorectal benign disease
Comments on “Laser hemorrhoidoplasty versus conventional hemorrhoidectomy for grade II/III hemorrhoids: a systematic review and meta-analysis”
Mohamed Ali Chaouch1orcid, Amine Gouader2orcid, Bassem Krimi2, Hani Oweira3
Annals of Coloproctology 2023;39(5):442-443.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3393/ac.2023.00206.0029
Published online: October 30, 2023

1Department of Visceral and Digestive Surgery, Fattouma Bourguiba Hospital, University of Monastir, Monastir, Tunisia

2Department of Visceral Surgery, Perpignan Hospital Center, Perpignan, France

3Department of Surgery, Mannheim University, Heidelberg University, Mannheim, Germany

Correspondence to: Mohamed Ali Chaouch, MD Department of Visceral and Digestive Surgery, Fattouma Bourguiba Hospital, University of Monastir, Rue du 1er juin 1995, Monastir 5000, Tunisia Email: docmedalichaouch@gmail.com
• Received: March 12, 2023   • Accepted: March 20, 2023

Copyright © 2023 The Korean Society of Coloproctology

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

prev next
  • 1,471 Views
  • 88 Download
See the article "Laser hemorrhoidoplasty versus conventional hemorrhoidectomy for grade II/III hemorrhoids: a systematic review and meta-analysis" on page 3.
Dear Editor,
We have read with great interest the systematic review and metaanalysis about laser hemorrhoidoplasty versus conventional hemorrhoidectomy for grade II/III hemorrhoids, published by Wee et al. [1], and we congratulate the authors on this valuable study. However, we have some comments on the methodology of this systematic review and meta-analysis.
The authors investigated heterogeneity using the I2 statistic. The value of I2 was interpreted as quantifying inconsistency. However, this concept is not accurate, and Wee et al. [1] did not cite any sources for using this concept to assess heterogeneity. Higgins et al. [2] reported this modality, which remains an opinion of an expert (level 5 of evidence according to the Oxford classification). After a few years, in 2017, Borenstein et al. [3], published a new article entitled “I2 is not an absolute measure of heterogeneity” to address the problem of using this modality of heterogeneity assessment. Instead, heterogeneity should be assessed by the 95% predictive interval, which presents variation in the true effect size (4, 5), and its variance (Tau2).
As concerns the model used to measure the effect size, a random-effects model was chosen when the I2 statistic was greater than 50%, and a fixed-effects model otherwise. The results were reported with 95% confidence intervals, and a P-value of less than 0.05 was treated as statistically significant. Generally, a random-effects model is often considered the appropriate choice for capturing uncertainty resulting from heterogeneity among studies. However, this concept is also not accurate. When dealing with different populations, a random-effect model must always be applied, whatever the I2. Indeed, there is no place for the fixed-effect model in this context [4]. In addition, for the retained studies, we would like to point out that the article by Maloku et al. [5] is a high-quality study with a large sample size, and a fixed-effect model provides a greater weight to larger pooled studies than to studies with a small sample size [6, 7]. We think that for this reason, it would be more accurate to present the forest plot comparing early postoperative bleeding (Fig. 3 in Wee et al. [1]) using a random-effects model because the weight of the study of Maloku et al. [5] was reported to be 67%. To improve accuracy, the authors should use the odds ratio instead of the risk ratio because they included randomized and nonrandomized clinical trials. When we recalculated the data, we found lower bleeding in the laser hemorrhoidoplasty group (odds ratio, 0.12; 95% confidence interval, 0.04–0.42; P < 0.001) and low heterogeneity among the different studies (Fig. 1).
In addition, we would like to point out several mistakes in the different figures presenting forest plots. The authors referred to the experimental group as “H”; however, they used “LH” as an abbreviation for “laser hemorrhoidoplasty.” In addition, in the control group, we found “open surgery” or “hemorrhoidectomy” referring to “conventional hemorrhoidectomy,” which was abbreviated as “CH.”
We believe that these corrected results should be brought to the readers to prevent incorrect interpretations of these findings.

Conflict of interest

No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

Funding

None.

Fig. 1.
Forest plot comparing early postoperative bleeding between laser hemorrhoidoplasty (LH) and conventional hemorrhoidectomy (CH). M-H, Mantel-Haenszel test; Random, random-effects model; CI, confidence interval.
ac-2023-00206-0029f1.jpg
  • 1. Wee IJ, Koo CH, Seow-En I, Ng YY, Lin W, Tan EJ. Laser hemorrhoidoplasty versus conventional hemorrhoidectomy for grade II/III hemorrhoids: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Coloproctol 2023;39:3–10.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
  • 2. Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 2003;327:557–60.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 3. Borenstein M, Higgins JP, Hedges LV, Rothstein HR. Basics of meta-analysis: I2 is not an absolute measure of heterogeneity. Res Synth Methods 2017;8:5–18.ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 4. Borenstein M, Hedges LV, Higgins JP, Rothstein HR. A basic introduction to fixed-effect and random-effects models for metaanalysis. Res Synth Methods 2010;1:97–111.ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 5. Maloku H, Lazović R, Terziqi H. Laser hemorrhoidoplasty versus Milligan-Morgan hemorrhoidectomy: short-term outcome. Vojnosanit Pregl 2019;76:8–12.Article
  • 6. Bell A, Fairbrother M, Jones K. Fixed and random effects models: making an informed choice. Qual Quant 2018;53:1051–74.ArticlePDF
  • 7. Hill TD, Davis AP, Roos JM, French MT. Limitations of fixed-effects models for panel data. Sociol Perspect 2020;63:357–69.ArticlePDF

Figure & Data

References

    Citations

    Citations to this article as recorded by  

      • PubReader PubReader
      • ePub LinkePub Link
      • Cite this Article
        Cite this Article
        export Copy Download
        Close
        Download Citation
        Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.

        Format:
        • RIS — For EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and most other reference management software
        • BibTeX — For JabRef, BibDesk, and other BibTeX-specific software
        Include:
        • Citation for the content below
        Comments on “Laser hemorrhoidoplasty versus conventional hemorrhoidectomy for grade II/III hemorrhoids: a systematic review and meta-analysis”
        Ann Coloproctol. 2023;39(5):442-443.   Published online October 30, 2023
        Close
      • XML DownloadXML Download
      Figure
      • 0
      Related articles
      Comments on “Laser hemorrhoidoplasty versus conventional hemorrhoidectomy for grade II/III hemorrhoids: a systematic review and meta-analysis”
      Image
      Fig. 1. Forest plot comparing early postoperative bleeding between laser hemorrhoidoplasty (LH) and conventional hemorrhoidectomy (CH). M-H, Mantel-Haenszel test; Random, random-effects model; CI, confidence interval.
      Comments on “Laser hemorrhoidoplasty versus conventional hemorrhoidectomy for grade II/III hemorrhoids: a systematic review and meta-analysis”

      Ann Coloproctol : Annals of Coloproctology Twitter Facebook
      TOP