Summary of findings: endovenous ablation and compression vs compression alone: The proportion of pressure ulcers healed
Summary of findings: endovenous ablation and compression showed no clear difference in proportion of ulcers healed at 90 days (90 days compared with compression alone (moderate certainty).
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Summary of findings: endovenous ablation and compression vs compression alone Proportion of ulcers healed at 90 days (90 days · adults with venous leg ulcers. Summary of findings: endovenous ablation and compression showed no clear difference in proportion of ulcers healed at 90 days (90 days compared with compression alone (moderate certainty). Endovenous ablation for venous leg ulcers (2023) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | RR 1.14 [1, 1.3] | 2 studies · 466 participants | Moderate |
Summary of findings: endovenous ablation and compression vs compression alone Proportion of ulcers healed at one year (52 week · adults with venous leg ulcers. Summary of findings: endovenous ablation and compression probably leads to higher proportion of ulcers healed at one year (52 week compared with compression alone (moderate certainty). Endovenous ablation for venous leg ulcers (2023) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | RR 1.08 [1.02, 1.14] | 2 studies · 505 participants | Moderate |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Endovenous ablation for venous leg ulcers 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | Not reported | list not extracted yet | Not assessed |
Studies behind the findings
None of these reviews ties its included studies to this outcome in the data here. Cochrane reviews and reviews with headline outcomes only do not list their studies yet.
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.