SynthesisFrontiers in medicine2026
Efficacy and safety of foam sclerotherapy for great saphenous vein reflux: a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs.
Synthesis in Frontiers in medicine, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This systematic review and meta-analysis compared the efficacy and safety of foam sclerotherapy vs. HL/S for great saphenous vein (GSV) reflux. Methods: We searched eight databases from inception to July 2026 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of foam sclerotherapy for GSV reflux. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed to pool the effects for each outcome with the longest follow-up time, and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach was used to rate the certainty of evidence. Results: Twenty-three trials (3,122 patients) were included. Foam sclerotherapy may provide benefits over HL/S for symptom improvement (low certainty: RR, 1.09, 95% CI, 1.03-1.16) and several perioperative outcomes (low to very low certainty), including shorter surgery duration (WMD -35.28 min), reduced hospital stay (WMD -3.72 days), lower costs (WMD -4622.34€), and less blood loss (WMD -50.48 mL). However, foam sclerotherapy had a significantly lower occlusion rate (low certainty: RR, 0.65, 95% CI, 0.49-0.86), and no statistically significant difference was observed in recurrence rates (very low certainty: RR, 0.56, 95% CI, 0.25-1.23). Conclusions: Foam sclerotherapy may yield better symptom improvement, safety, and perioperative outcomes than HL/S for GSV reflux despite a lower occlusion rate. While comparable recurrence rates were noted between treatments, this result does not confirm equivalent long-term durability of the two interventions. The overall certainty of evidence was low, warranting further high-quality standardized long-term studies. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42024537972, identifier [CRD42024537972].
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.