ReviewCochrane evidence synthesis and methods2025
Long-Term Outcomes of Invasive vs Noninvasive Treatment for Intermittent Claudication: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods, 2025. 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
Background: Intermittent claudication (IC) is a hallmark symptom of peripheral arterial disease (PAD), causing pain and discomfort during physical activity caused by reduced blood flow to the lower extremities. The condition significantly impairs mobility and quality of life (QoL) in affected individuals. Treatment options for IC range from conservative approaches, including best medical therapy (BMT) and supervised exercise therapy (SET), to invasive interventions like angioplasty and open re-vascularization. Aim: This meta-analysis and systematic review seek to assess the long-term results of invasive procedures concerning Noninvasive treatments for the management of patients with IC. Methods: A comprehensive search was conducted in October 2024 across databases containing PubMed, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Scopus. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing invasive interventions to Noninvasive treatments were included. Primary outcomes were quality of life (QoL), ankle-brachial pressure index (ABPI), and maximum walking distance (MWD). Secondary outcomes were major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), mortality, complications, and re-intervention rates. Data analysis was conducted using the Cochrane Review Manager 5. Follow-up duration was between 2 and 7 years, longest available between 2 and 7 years; prioritized 2 years when present. Results: A total of 11 RCTs with 1379 patients were included in the analysis. Invasive treatments demonstrated a significant improvement in MWD and ABPI compared to Noninvasive treatments (MWD pooled Mean Difference (MD) = 64.94 [10.77, 115.12] 95% CI, Conclusions: Both invasive and Noninvasive treatments are effective in managing IC. Invasive treatments provide greater improvement in blood flow and walking distance, but the risk of complications and re-interventions should be considered in treatment decisions. Further research with larger sample sizes and designed for long-term assessment is needed to assess the cost-effectiveness and long-term outcomes of invasive treatments.
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.