ArticleMedicine2019
Long-term efficacy of different procedures for treatment of varicose veins: A network meta-analysis.
Article in Medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Saphenous vein ablation a word of caution.Journal of vascular surgery. Venous and lymphatic disorders · 2024Article
- Strategies and challenges in treatment of varicose veins and venous insufficiency.World journal of clinical cases · 2022Review
- Therapies of varicose veins: Protocol for the reporting and methodological quality of pairwise meta-analyses.Medicine · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundVarious procedures for the treatment of varicose veins have been shown to have long-term effectiveness, but research has yet to identify the most effective procedure. The aim of this study was to investigate the long-term efficacy of different procedures based on Bayesian network meta-analysis and to rank therapeutic options for clinical decision-making.
methodsGlobally recognized databases, namely, MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central, were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Quantitative pooled estimation of successful treatment rate (STR) and recurrence rate (RR) was performed to assess the long-term efficacy of each procedure with more than a 1-year follow-up. The surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) probabilities of the P values regarding STR and RR were calculated to rank various procedures. Grades of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria were utilized for the recommendation of evidence from pairwise direct comparisons.
resultsA total of 39 RCTs encompassing a total of 6917 limbs were eligible and provided relative raw data. After quantitative analysis, the CHIVA procedure was determined to have the best long-term efficacy, as it had the highest STR (SUCRA, 0.37). Additionally, the results revealed that CHIVA possessed the highest probability of achieving the lowest long-term RR (SUCRA, 0.61). Moreover, the sensitivity analysis with inconsistency approach clarified the reliability of the main results, and the evidence of most direct comparisons was ranked as high or moderate.
conclusionCHIVA seemed to have superior clinical benefits on long-term efficacy for treating varicose veins. However, the conclusion still needs additional trials for supporting evidence.
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.