SynthesisThe British journal of surgery2021
Interventions for great saphenous vein reflux: network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.
Synthesis in The British journal of surgery, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 23 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
- Venous Insufficiency: Wound Management.Current cardiology reports · 2024Review
- Design of a treatment satisfaction measure for patients undergoing varicose vein treatment: Venous Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire (VenousTSQ).The British journal of surgery · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA variety of endovascular and open surgical interventions exist to treat great saphenous vein reflux. However, comparisons of treatment outcomes have been inconsistent.
methodsA systematic review and network meta-analysis of RCTs was performed to compare rates of incomplete stripping or non-occlusion of the great saphenous vein with or without reflux (anatomical failure) at early, mid- and long-term follow-up; and secondary outcomes (reintervention and clinical recurrence) among intervention groups. The surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) method was used to estimate the probability of the intervention with the lowest anatomical failure rates.
resultsSome 72 RCTs were included. Comparisons of endothermal techniques with open surgery were mostly not significantly different, except for endovenous laser ablation (EVLA), which had higher long-term anatomical failure rates (pooled risk ratio (RR) 1.87, 95 per cent c.i. 1.14 to 3.07). Mechanochemical ablation had higher anatomical failure rates than radiofrequency ablation (RFA) (pooled RR 2.77, 1.38 to 5.53), and cyanoacrylate closure (CAC) had a RR 0.56 (0.34 to 0.93) times lower than either RFA or EVLA at the early term. Ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy had a higher risk of anatomical failure and reintervention than open surgery, with the lowest SUCRA value, and CAC was ranked first, third and first for best intervention for anatomical failure at early, mid and long term respectively. However, clinical recurrence rates were not significantly different between all comparisons.
conclusionMechanochemical ablation and ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy performed poorly, with higher anatomical failure rates in the long term. The other treatment modalities had similar rates of anatomical failure in the short and mid term.
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.