ReviewPhlebology2026
What we cannot miss in clinical trials on compression therapy.
Review in Phlebology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BackgroundCompression therapy (CT) is widely prescribed for chronic venous disease (CVD), lymphedema, and lipedema despite robust evidence supporting its effectiveness only in a minority of clinical scenarios.AimProvide an overview of the methodological parameters essential for obtaining a high-quality scientific trial.MethodsThe International Compression Club (ICC) chairman prepared a preliminary list of the main methodological flaws in publications on CT, and a list of parameters to be included in high-quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs). This list was circulated among ICC board members, who provided their comments and suggestions. The document was then presented and discussed at an ICC consensus meeting with various professionals in May 2024 in London. Meeting minutes were distributed to ICC members, and the final document reflecting all additional comments and suggestions was compiled. In summary, the following recommendations represent the consensus of the ICC members.ResultsThe ICC recommends that the following parameters be reported in randomized clinical trials (RCTs): appropriate patient selection, adequate sample size, detailed classification of venous and lymphatic diseases, detailed description of CT modality, adherence to CT, and reasons for non-adherence. Tailored recommendations for specific scenarios and the use of standardized quality-of-life (QoL) tools are emphasized. Despite their value, RCTs face limitations and do not reflect real-world clinical practice. Real-world evidence (RWE) can complement RCTs by providing insights into routine applications, safety, compliance, and cost-effectiveness across diverse patient populations by standardized methodologies, large cohorts, and reliable validated registries to ensure validity.ConclusionsCombining data from RCTs and RWS allows for a comprehensive understanding of CT. RCTs provide evidence of effectiveness in a controlled scenario, while RWE offers real-world perspectives on compliance and economic outcomes in clinical practice. Together, these approaches enable a more holistic evaluation of CT, addressing current gaps in knowledge and guiding its optimal use.
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.