ArticleSurgery open science2019
Different management options for primary varicose veins in females: A prospective study.
Article in Surgery open science, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative effectiveness of non-compounded polidocanol 1% endovenous microfoam (Varithena) ablation versus endovenous thermal ablation utilizing a systematic review and network meta-analysis.Journal of vascular surgery. Venous and lymphatic disorders · 2024Pooled it
- Post-surgical functional outcomes in patients exhibiting different topographical variants of Lumber epidural varicose veins: a retrospective analysis.International journal of surgery open · 2026Article
- Endovenous laser treatmentWorld journal of clinical cases · 2023Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of this study was to evaluate the long-term follow-up results of different management modalities in treating primary uncomplicated lower limb female varicosities.
methodsA prospective study took place within a 3-year period from June 2010 until May 2012. Patients were divided into 3 groups: group I (
resultsAll selected patients were female aged from 35-62 years with a mean of 47 ± 7.6 years. Thirty-five patients (43.75%) were treated surgically by saphenofemoral junction disconnection (SFJD), and great saphenous vein (GSV) stripping; 25 patients (31.25%) with ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy and the remaining 20 patients (25%) were treated with endovenous laser therapy. A significant success rate of GSV ablation was obtained for the endovenous laser therapy treated group over the ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy treated patients (P = .023). There was no significant difference between the surgically treated group and those group treated with endovenous laser therapy (P = .85). Recurrence was observed following long-term follow-up after 6 years in 8.5% in group I, 36% in group II, and 10% in group III, respectively. Venous clinical severity score (VCSS) and health-related quality of life score (HRQOLS) improved significantly in all treated groups.
conclusionsLong-term follow-up of patients with primary superficial varicosities among females is mandatory to elucidate the postoperative recurrence, especially those who underwent ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy. In addition to the observation of the development of newly formed varicosities in susceptible individuals which might develop later following long-term follow-up.
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.