Question · asked by 1 review
Endovascular revascularisation vs no therapy: Pain‐free walking distance
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Endovascular revascularisation vs no specific therapy Pain‐free walking distance · intermittent claudication Endovascular revascularisation versus conservative management for intermittent claudication (2018) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | no estimate extracted | 3 studies · 125 participants | Moderate |
Endovascular revascularisation vs no specific therapy Pain‐free walking distance (long‐term) · intermittent claudication Endovascular revascularisation versus conservative management for intermittent claudication (2018) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 103 participants | Low |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Endovascular revascularisation versus conservative management for intermittent claudication 2018 · 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.