Comparison of efficacy and safety of different treatment modalities for hemorrhoids: A network meta-analysis

Figure 3 Network meta-analysis results for recurrence. A: Network geometry of the evidence for recurrence, with node size proportional to the number of patients and edge width proportional to the number of direct comparisons; B: Forest plot of odds ratios for recurrence, with Milligan–Morgan hemorrhoidectomy as the reference; C: Surface under the cumulative ranking curve values for recurrence (higher values indicate a greater probability of being the most recurrence-prone intervention); D: League table of pairwise comparisons, showing odds ratios and 95% credible intervals for recurrence. 95%CI: 95% credible interval; DCV: Direct current electrotherapy; FH: Ferguson hemorrhoidectomy; HAL: Hemorrhoidal artery ligation; HarS: Harmonic scalpel hemorrhoidectomy; IJS: Injection sclerotherapy; IRC: Infrared coagulation; LASER: Laser hemorrhoidectomy; LigaH: LigaSure™ hemorrhoidectomy; MM: Milligan–Morgan hemorrhoidectomy; MPSH: Modified Park’s submucosal hemorrhoidectomy; OR: Odds ratio; RBL: Rubber band ligation; RFC: Radiofrequency coagulation; SCH: Semi-closed hemorrhoidectomy; SH: Stapled hemorrhoidopexy; SLM: Suture ligation with mucopexy; TST: Tissue-selecting technique.