ReviewJournal of vascular surgery. Venous and lymphatic disorders2024
Black holes in compression therapy: A quest for data.
Review in Journal of vascular surgery. Venous and lymphatic disorders, 2024. 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, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy of Inelastic Compression Devices with a High Stiffness in Older Breast Cancer Survivors with Moderate and Severe Lymphedema: A Prospective Interventional Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- What we cannot miss in clinical trials on compression therapy.Phlebology · 2026Review
- Superficial Venous Thrombosis: A Comprehensive Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
3 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveAlthough compression therapy (CT) is considered a crucial conservative treatment in chronic venous disease, strong evidence is missing for many clinical indications. This literature review aims to point out what strong evidence we have for CT and all the clinical scenarios where strong evidence still needs to be included.
methodsThe research was conducted on MEDLINE with PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science. The time range was set between January 1980 and October 2022. Only articles in English were included.
resultsThe main problem with CT is the low scientific quality of many studies on compression. Consequently, we have robust data on the effectiveness of CT only for advanced venous insufficiency (C3-C6), deep vein thrombosis and lymphedema. We have data on the efficacy of compression for venous symptoms control and in sports recovery, but the low quality of studies cannot result in a strong recommendation. For compression in postvenous procedures, superficial venous thrombosis, thromboprophylaxis, post-thrombotic syndrome prevention and treatment, and sports performance, we have either no data or very debated data not allowing any recommendation.
conclusionsWe need high-level scientific studies to assess if CT can be effective or definitely ineffective in the clinical indications where we still have a paucity of or contrasting data.
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.