Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38677550›Full record

ArticleJournal of vascular surgery. Venous and lymphatic disorders2024

A scoping review of scores or grading systems for pelvic venous disorders.

Konstantinos Kavallieros, Tasneem Pope, Konstantinos Mantonanakis, Matthew Tan, Sergio Gianesini, Zaza Lazarashvili, Aleksandra Jaworucka-Kaczorowska, Sriram Narayanan, Adam M Gwozdz, Alun H Davies

Open access · goldAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article 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 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 5 institutions in 5 countries.

Konstantinos KavallierosAcademic Section of Vascular Surgery, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
Tasneem PopeAcademic Section of Vascular Surgery, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
Konstantinos MantonanakisQueen Mary University of London, Malta Campus, Gozo, Malta.
Matthew TanSection of Vascular Surgery, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
Sergio GianesiniDepartment of Translational Medicine, University of Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy.
Zaza LazarashviliChapdize Cardiovascular Center, Tbilisi, Georgia.
Aleksandra Jaworucka-KaczorowskaCenter of Phlebology and Aesthetic Medicine, Jaworuccy Surgery Center, Janczewo, Poland.
Sriram NarayananThe Venus Clinic, The Harley Street Heart and Vascular Centre, Singapore, Singapore.
Adam M GwozdzAcademic Section of Vascular Surgery, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom. Electronic address: a.gwozdz@imperial.ac.uk.
Alun H DaviesAcademic Section of Vascular Surgery, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
Imperial College London · GBAesthetic Surgery Center · USNational Heart Centre Singapore · SGQueen Mary University of London · GBUniversity of Ferrara · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPelvic venous disorders (PeVD) encompass a variety of conditions linked to chronic pelvic pain in women. However, PeVD remain underdiagnosed due to the absence of universally accepted diagnostic criteria. The complexity of PeVD classifications across specialties leads to delays in treatment. This scoping review aims to fill a gap in PeVD diagnosis and management by identifying all existing scoring or grading systems to lay the foundation for standardized clinical scoring tools for PeVD.

methodsThis scoping review was undertaken according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping reviews. Online databases were searched up to April 2023. Studies implementing a scoring or grading system for patients with confirmed or suspected PeVD were included. Scores or grading systems were classified into four main categories based on their use in the study: screening, diagnosis, measure of disease severity, and measure of response to treatment.

resultsOf the 2976 unique records identified, 82 were reviewed in full, and 20 were included in this study. The publication dates ranged from 1984 to 2023 (median, 2018; interquartile range, 2003-2022). A total of 21 scores and/or grading systems were identified. Of these 21 scores, 10 (47.6%) were clinical scores, and 10 (47.6%) were scores based on radiological findings; one study included a score that used both clinical and radiological findings. The identified scores were used in various settings. Of the 21 scores, 2 (9.52%) were used for screening in a tertiary care setting; 3 (14.3%) were used to establish the PeVD diagnosis; 8 (38.1%) were used to assess disease severity; and 8 (38.1%) were used as measures of response to treatment. Of the eight scores assessing disease severity, four (50.0%) assessed the degree of dilatation of pelvic veins and four (50%) assessed the severity of reflux. Only three of the scores were validated.

conclusionsThis scoping review identified a range of scoring and grading systems for PeVD. We note a lack of a validated scoring system, both clinical and radiological, for screening and assessment of disease severity. This is an important first step in developing validated disease-specific scoring systems for patient screening, appropriate referral, assessment of symptom severity, and assessment of the response to treatment.

Indexed as

Pelvic PainPelvisSeverity of Illness IndexFemaleHumansPredictive Value of TestsReproducibility of ResultsVascular DiseasesVeinsPelvic venous diseasePelvic venous insufficiencyScoping reviewScoreSeverity grading

Identifiers

PMID38677550
PMCPMC11523442
OpenAlexW4395449877

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.