What do systematic reviews say?

Endovascular revascularisation plus conservative therapy vs conservative therapy

• Endovascular revascularisation versus conservative management for intermittent claudication 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  3 studies · 432 participants
  Moderate
• Endovascular revascularisation versus conservative management for intermittent claudication 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  1 study · 106 participants
  Low

Endovascular revascularisation plus conservative therapy vs conservative therapy

• Endovascular revascularisation versus conservative management for intermittent claudication 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  2 studies · 305 participants
  Moderate
• Endovascular revascularisation versus conservative management for intermittent claudication 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

Endovascular revascularisation plus conservative therapy vs conservative therapy

Endovascular revascularisation plus conservative therapy leads to lower secondary invasive interventions compared with conservative therapy alone (high certainty).

• Endovascular revascularisation versus conservative management for intermittent claudication 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  OR 0.27 [0.13, 0.55]
  3 studies · 457 participants
  High

Endovascular revascularisation plus conservative therapy vs conservative therapy

• Endovascular revascularisation versus conservative management for intermittent claudication 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  2 studies · 330 participants
  Moderate