ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2023
A Comparative Study of a Small Series of Patients (50 Patients) with Pelvic Varicose Veins Treated with Plugs Alone or Plugs and Polidocanol.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2023. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Identification of outcomes in clinical studies for pelvic venous disorders.Journal of vascular surgery. Venous and lymphatic disorders · 2024Pooled it
- A keep-it-simple embolisation approach to treat pelvic congestion syndrome without compromising clinical effectiveness.Journal of medical imaging and radiation oncology · 2025Article
- Analysis of the Clinical Efficacy of Interlock Detachable Coil Interventional Embolization on Pelvic Congestion Syndrome and Ovarian Reserve Function: A Retrospective Study.International journal of general medicine · 2025Article
- Diagnosis and Management of Pelvic Venous Disorders in Women.Cardiovascular and interventional radiology · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
level of evidenceLevel 2. PURPOSE: To compare the safety and efficacy of vascular plug (VP) and vascular plug and polidocanol foam (VPPF) treatments for embolization in pelvic congestion syndrome (PCS). MATERIALS AND
methodsA comparative, prospective, two-center study enrolled 50 women with PCS from January 2019 to January 2020. The patients were divided into two groups, and embolization was performed with VP (n = 25) and VPPF (n = 25) treatments. The mean age of the patients was 45.6 years ± 6.9. Three clinical parameters were assessed: abdominal pain, dyspareunia, and lower limb pain. The primary outcome (clinical success at 1 yr using a VAS), number of devices, procedure and fluoroscopy times, radiation doses, costs, and complications were compared. The participants were followed-up at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months.
resultsAt the 1-year follow-up, clinical success did not significantly differ between the two groups (VP vs. VPPF) regarding the improvement of the symptoms analyzed (pelvic pain, dyspareunia, lower extremity pain, and other symptoms (
conclusionsEmbolization for PCS resulted in pain relief in 90% of patients; the use of polidocanol did not demonstrate changes in the clinical outcome. The use of a VP alone was associated with decreased fluoroscopy time and radiation dose.
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.