PMCC PMCC

Search tips
Search criteria

Advanced
Results 1-3 (3)
 

Clipboard (0)
None

Select a Filter Below

Journals
Authors
more »
Year of Publication
Document Types
1.  The HubBLe trial: haemorrhoidal artery ligation (HAL) versus rubber band ligation (RBL) for haemorrhoids 
BMC Gastroenterology  2012;12:153.
Background
Haemorrhoids (piles) are a very common condition seen in surgical clinics. After exclusion of more sinister causes of haemorrhoidal symptoms (rectal bleeding, perianal irritation and prolapse), the best option for treatment depends upon persistence and severity of the symptoms. Minor symptoms often respond to conservative treatment such as dietary fibre and reassurance. For more severe symptoms treatment such as rubber band ligation may be therapeutic and is a very commonly performed procedure in the surgical outpatient setting. Surgery is usually reserved for those who have more severe symptoms, as well as those who do not respond to non-operative therapy; surgical techniques include haemorrhoidectomy and haemorrhoidopexy. More recently, haemorrhoidal artery ligation has been introduced as a minimally invasive, non destructive surgical option.
There are substantial data in the literature concerning efficacy and safety of 'rubber band ligation including multiple comparisons with other interventions, though there are no studies comparing it to haemorrhoidal artery ligation. A recent overview has been carried out by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence which concludes that current evidence shows haemorrhoidal artery ligation to be a safe alternative to haemorrhoidectomy and haemorrhoidopexy though it also highlights the lack of good quality data as evidence for the advantages of the technique.
Methods/design
The aim of this study is to establish the clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness of haemorrhoidal artery ligation compared with conventional rubber band ligation in the treatment of people with symptomatic second or third degree (Grade II or Grade III) haemorrhoids.
Design: A multi-centre, parallel group randomised controlled trial.
Outcomes: The primary outcome is patient-reported symptom recurrence twelve months following the intervention. Secondary outcome measures relate to symptoms, complications, health resource use, health related quality of life and cost effectiveness following the intervention.
Participants: 350 patients with grade II or grade III haemorrhoids will be recruited in surgical departments in up to 14 NHS hospitals.
Randomisation: A multi-centre, parallel group randomised controlled trial. Block randomisation by centre will be used, with 175 participants randomised to each group.
Discussion
The results of the research will help inform future practice for the treatment of grade II and III haemorrhoids.
Trial Registration
ISRCTN41394716
doi:10.1186/1471-230X-12-153
PMCID: PMC3503770  PMID: 23098097
Haemorrhoids; Rubber band ligation; Haemorrhoidal artery ligation; Surgical randomised controlled trial
3.  Randomised trial of educational visits to enhance use of systematic reviews in 25 obstetric units 
BMJ : British Medical Journal  1998;317(7165):1041-1046.
Objective To evaluate the effectiveness of an educational visit to help obstetricians and midwives select and use evidence from a Cochrane database containing 600 systematic reviews.
Design Randomised single blind controlled trial with obstetric units allocated to an educational visit or control group.
Setting 25 of the 26 district general obstetric units in two former NHS regions.
Subjects The senior obstetrician and midwife from each intervention unit participated in educational visits. Clinical practices of all staff were assessed in 4508 pregnancies.
Intervention Single informal educational visit by a respected obstetrician including discussion of evidence based obstetrics, guidance on implementation, and donation of Cochrane database and other materials.
Main outcome measures Rates of perineal suturing with polyglycolic acid, ventouse delivery, prophylactic antibiotics in caesarean section, and steroids in preterm delivery, before and 9 months after visits, and concordance of guidelines with review evidence for same marker practices before and after visits.
Results Rates varied greatly, but the overall baseline mean of 43% (986/2312) increased to 54% (1189/2196) 9 months later. Rates of ventouse delivery increased significantly in intervention units but not in control units; there was no difference between the two types of units in uptake of other practices. Pooling rates from all 25 units, use of antibiotics in caesarean section and use of polyglycolic acid sutures increased significantly over the period, but use of steroids in preterm delivery was unchanged. Labour ward guidelines seldom agreed with evidence at baseline; this hardly improved after visits. Educational visits cost £860 each (at 1995 prices).
Conclusions There was considerable uptake of evidence into practice in both control and intervention units between 1994 and 1995. Our educational visits added little to this, despite the informal setting, targeting of senior staff from two disciplines, and donation of educational materials. Further work is needed to define cost effective methods to enhance the uptake of evidence from systematic reviews and to clarify leadership and roles of senior obstetric staff in implementing the evidence.
Key messagesThere was marked variation in four common obstetric practices known to improve patient outcomes in 25 district general obstetric units across south east England in both 1994 and 1995Labour ward guidelines in the 25 units showed little concordance with Cochrane review evidence in 1994 and 1995The gap between Cochrane review evidence and clinical practice narrowed in 1995, but 46% (1010) of 2196 pregnant women studied were still not managed according to current evidenceEducational visits to senior staff led to a significant but clinically modest uptake of evidence from systematic reviews in only one of the four practices studiedReducing practice variations and improving clinical knowledge management by helping clinicians to locate, select, and implement systematic review evidence remain important challenges for the NHS
PMCID: PMC28686  PMID: 9774287

Results 1-3 (3)