ArticleBMJ open2019
Endovenous ablation and surgery in great saphenous vein reflux: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Efficacy and safety of cyanoacrylate ablation vs endovenous radiofrequency ablation for varicose veins in chronic great saphenous vein insufficiency: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of vascular surgery. Venous and lymphatic disorders · 2026Pooled it
- A network meta-analysis on the efficacy and safety of thermal and nonthermal endovenous ablation treatments.Journal of vascular surgery. Venous and lymphatic disorders · 2023Pooled it
- Interventions for great saphenous vein reflux: network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.The British journal of surgery · 2021Pooled it
- Endovenous chemical ablation and trendelenburg's (eCAT) operation for treating great saphenous vein varicosities: a single-arm open-label interventional study.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionEndovenous ablations are the new standard procedures for treatment of great saphenous vein reflux including endovenous laser ablation (EVLA), radio frequency ablation (RFA), endovenous steam ablation (EVSA), mechanochemical ablation (MOCA), cyanoacrylate injection and ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy (UGFS). EVLA and RFA have demonstrated similar anatomical success for short-term outcome, but results are controversial for longer term (≥5 years). Additional evidences from randomised controlled trials have been published. This study is, therefore, conducted to, directly and indirectly, compare outcomes among all procedures stratifying by short-term and long-term follow-up. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Medline and Scopus will be searched from 2000 to September 2018 with predefined search strategy. Interventions of interest are open surgery (ie, saphenofemoral or high ligation (HL) with stripping) and endovenous ablations (ie, EVLA, RFA, EVSA, MOCA, cyanoacrylate injection and UGFS). The primary outcome is anatomical success. Two independent reviewers will select studies, extract data and assess risk of bias. Disagreement will be adjudicated by the third party. Outcomes will be directly pooled if there are at least three studies in that comparison. A fixed-effect model will be used unless heterogeneity is present, in which case a random-effect model will be applied. Sources of heterogeneity will be explored using meta-regression analysis, and sub-group analysis will be done accordingly. Publication bias will be assessed using Egger's test and funnel plot. A network meta-analysis will be applied to indirect compare all interventions including RFA, EVLA, EVLA with HL, UGFS, UGFS with HL and HL with stripping. Probability of being best intervention will be estimated and ranked. Inconsistency assumption will be checked using a design-by-treatment interaction model. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required for systematic review and network meta-analysis. The study will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018096794.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.