ArticleJournal of vascular surgery. Venous and lymphatic disorders2023
Quantitative analysis validation for sclerotherapy treatment of lower limb telangiectasias.
Article in Journal of vascular surgery. Venous and lymphatic disorders, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe evaluation of sclerotherapy efficacy for lower limb telangiectasias, which is the standard treatment for such condition, is commonly assisted by scores based on before and after pictures. This method is marked by its subjectivity, which impairs the precision of studies on the subject, making it unfeasible to evaluate and compare different interventions. We hypothesize that a quantitative method for evaluating the effectiveness of sclerotherapy for lower limb telangiectasias may present more reproducible results. Reliable measurement methods and new technologies may become part of the clinical practice in the near future.
methodsBefore and after treatment photographs were analyzed using a quantitative method and compared with a validated qualitative method based on improvement scores. Reliability analysis of the methods was performed, applying the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and kappa coefficient with quadratic weights (Fleiss Cohen), for analysis of inter-examiner and intra-examiner agreement in both evaluation methods. Convergent validity was evaluated by applying the Spearman test. To assess the applicability of the quantitative scale, the Mann-Whitney test was used.
resultsA better agreement between examiners is shown for the quantitative scale, with a mean kappa of .3986 (.251-.511) for qualitative analysis and a mean kappa of .788 (.655-.918) for quantitative analysis (P < .001 for all examiners). Convergent validity was achieved by correlation coefficients of .572 to .905 (P < .001). The quantitative scale results obtained between the specialists with different degrees of experience did not show statistical difference (seniors: 0.71 [-0.48/1.00] × juniors: 0.73 [-0.34/1.00]; P = .221).
conclusionsConvergent validity between both analyses has been achieved, but quantitative analysis has been shown to be more reliable and can be applied by professionals of any degree of experience. The validation of quantitative analysis is a major milestone for the development of new technology and automated, reliable, applications.
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.