Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

6 questions · 8 findings · 1 reviews

Sort:Best matchNewest Highest certainty Download CSV

No studies found 0 · 0%GRADE not reported 0 · 0%Very low 0 · 0%Low 8 · 100%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%

Subintimal angioplasty with stenting vs remote endarterectomy

Clinical improvement: Rutherford classification improvement Rutherford classification · 95 people with Rutherford 3 to 5 TASC‐II D lesions

Subintimal angioplasty with stenting showed no clear difference in clinical improvement: Rutherford classification improvement… compared with remote endarterectomy (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Subintimal angioplasty for lower limb arterial chronic total occlusions 2016 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 0.79 [0.61, 1.03]
1 study · 95 participants
Low

Subintimal angioplasty with stenting vs remote endarterectomy

Clinical improvement: ABI improvement Significant postexercise ABI improvement · 95 people with Rutherford 3 to 5 TASC‐II D lesions

Subintimal angioplasty with stenting showed no clear difference in clinical improvement: ABI improvement Significant postexercise ABI… compared with remote endarterectomy (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Subintimal angioplasty for lower limb arterial chronic total occlusions 2016 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 0.86 [0.68, 1.08]
1 study · 95 participants
Low

Subintimal angioplasty with stenting vs remote endarterectomy

Technical success · 95 people with Rutherford 3 to 5 TASC‐II D lesions

Subintimal angioplasty with stenting showed no clear difference in technical success rate compared with remote endarterectomy (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Subintimal angioplasty for lower limb arterial chronic total occlusions 2016 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 0.97 [0.88, 1.07]
1 study · 95 participants
Low

Subintimal angioplasty with stenting vs remote endarterectomy

months' patency rate · 95 people with Rutherford 3 to 5 TASC‐II D lesions

Subintimal angioplasty with stenting showed no clear difference in months' patency rate compared with remote endarterectomy (low certainty).

3 findings from 1 review

Subintimal angioplasty for lower limb arterial chronic total occlusions 2016 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 0.75 [0.57, 1]
1 study · 95 participants
Low
Subintimal angioplasty for lower limb arterial chronic total occlusions 2016 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 0.74 [0.55, 1]
1 study · 95 participants
Low
Subintimal angioplasty for lower limb arterial chronic total occlusions 2016 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 0.76 [0.52, 1.11]
1 study · 95 participants
Low

Subintimal angioplasty with stenting vs remote endarterectomy

Limb salvage · 95 people with Rutherford 3 to 5 TASC‐II D lesions

Subintimal angioplasty with stenting showed no clear difference in months' limb salvage rate compared with remote endarterectomy (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Subintimal angioplasty for lower limb arterial chronic total occlusions 2016 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 0.97 [0.9, 1.05]
1 study · 95 participants
Low

Subintimal angioplasty with stenting vs remote endarterectomy

Complications · 95 people with Rutherford 3 to 5 TASC‐II D lesions

Subintimal angioplasty with stenting showed no clear difference in complications compared with remote endarterectomy (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Subintimal angioplasty for lower limb arterial chronic total occlusions 2016 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 0.77 [0.14, 4.42]
1 study · 95 participants
Low