ReviewCureus2025
Therapeutic Outcomes of Graduated and Progressive Compression in Chronic Venous Disorders: A Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Chronic venous disorders (CVD) are a common health problem affecting millions of people worldwide. Compression therapy, including graduated compression (graduated elastic compression stockings (GECS)) and progressive compression (progressive elastic compression stockings (PECS)), is a widely used treatment for CVD. This meta-analysis aimed to determine whether PECS provides superior clinical and hemodynamic outcomes compared to GECS in patients with CVDs. Clinical efficacy was defined as the disappearance or significant improvement in the sensation of fatigue or heaviness as reported by patients or assessed through validated symptom scales. A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing GECS and PECS for CVD from inception to November 23, 2024. The primary outcomes were clinical improvement, interface pressure, and ejection fraction. Secondary outcomes included tightness, ease of donning, and adverse events. Data were pooled using a random-effects meta-analysis model, with odds ratios (ORs) and mean differences (MDs) calculated along with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Five RCTs involving 874 patients were included in the meta-analysis. PECS demonstrated significantly higher clinical improvement rates compared to GECS. Additionally, PECS resulted in a significantly higher interface pressure at level C (calf level), which is crucial for optimal venous hemodynamics. However, no significant difference was found between the two modalities in terms of improving ejection fraction. Secondary outcomes, such as tightness and ease of donning, showed no significant differences between the two groups. This meta-analysis suggests that PECS may be a more effective treatment option for CVD compared to GECS. However, further high-quality RCTs with longer follow-up periods are needed to confirm these findings and to assess the long-term benefits of PECS.
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.