SynthesisScientific reports2026
Effectiveness of endovenous ablation techniques and surgery for great saphenous vein incompetence: a comprehensive meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in Scientific reports, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Great saphenous vein (GSV) incompetence can be treated by open surgery or endovenous modalities; comparative effectiveness and safety across techniques remain variably reported. This study aimed to compare endovenous laser ablation (EVLA), radiofrequency ablation (RFA), endovenous steam ablation (EVSA), and surgery for efficacy, safety, and patient-reported outcomes in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were scrutinized, supplemented by citation searching. RCTs enrolling adults with primary truncal venous reflux (predominantly GSV) and comparing EVLA, RFA, EVSA, or surgery; outcomes included anatomic success (occlusion/reflux-free on duplex), complications (nerve injury), reand patient-reported measures (VCSS, AVVSS/AVVQ). Adults undergoing EVLA, RFA, EVSA, or high ligation with stripping; trials ranged from single- to multicenter and included short- to long-term follow-up. Two investigators screening and extraction and risk of bias assessed across randomization, deviations from intended interventions, missing data, outcome measurement, and reporting. Both random- and fixed-effects meta-analyses were applied to pool risk ratios (RRs) or mean differences (MDs). Between-study heterogeneity was quantified using the I² statistic, small-study effects were evaluated using funnel plots and Egger’s test, and leave-one-out sensitivity analyses were undertaken. Of 1,824 database records, 57 full texts were assessed; 38 reports representing 27 RCTs were included in qualitative and quantitative synthesis. EVLA vs. surgery for occlusion showed no difference (10 eligible reports; RR = 0.98, 95% CI 0.90–1.06; p = 0.63; I² = 0%). EVLA vs. RFA was likewise equivalent (10 eligible reports; RR = 1.01, 95% CI 0.95–1.07; p = 0.80; I² = 0%). RFA vs. surgery showed no difference (5 eligible reports; RR = 1.00, 95% CI 0.89–1.13; p = 0.94; I² = 0%). EVLA reduced nerve injury versus surgery (10 eligible reports; RR = 0.47, 95% CI 0.29–0.76; p < 0.01; I² = 0%); EVLA vs. RFA and RFA vs. surgery showed no significant differences. VCSS, AVVSS, and AVVQ improvements were comparable between modalities. EVSA was non-inferior to EVLA, and UGFS showed inferior long-term anatomic durability versus EVLA/RFA/surgery. EVLA and RFA achieve anatomic success equivalent to surgery with fewer sensory complications for EVLA and similar patient-reported benefits. EVSA appears promising but requires more long-term RCTs, while UGFS is less durable for primary GSV reflux.Registration INPLASY202590092 (https//doi.org/10.37766/inplasy2025.9.0092).
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.