Cochrane · systematic review · CD010512
Endovascular revascularisation versus conservative management for intermittent claudication
Fakhry, F, Fokkenrood, HJP, Spronk, S, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2018 · Cochrane Library
VascularAMSTAR 2: not assessed
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
18
current version
GRADE rated
16
No studies
2
Included studies
NR
No studies 2 · 11.1%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 0 · 0%Low 3 · 16.7%Moderate 10 · 55.6%High 3 · 16.7%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
Endovascular revascularisation compared with no specific therapy for intermittent claudication except verbal advice to exercise
Population: intermittent claudication
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Maximum walking distance Endovascular revascularisation vs no specific therapy | no estimate extracted | 3 studies · 125 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias, publication bias |
Maximum walking distance (long‐term) Endovascular revascularisation vs no specific therapy | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 103 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision, inconsistency, publication bias |
Pain‐free walking distance Endovascular revascularisation vs no specific therapy | no estimate extracted | 3 studies · 125 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias, publication bias |
Pain‐free walking distance (long‐term) Endovascular revascularisation vs no specific therapy | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 103 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision, inconsistency, publication bias |
Secondary invasive interventions Endovascular revascularisation vs no specific therapy | OR 0.81 [0.12, 5.28] | 2 studies · 118 participants | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision, publication bias |
Quality of life (disease‐specific) Endovascular revascularisation vs no specific therapy | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Endovascular revascularisation compared with conservative therapy for intermittent claudication
Population: intermittent claudication
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Maximum walking distance Endovascular revascularisation vs conservative therapy | no estimate extracted | 5 studies · 345 participants | Moderate Downgraded: inconsistency, publication bias |
Maximum walking distance (long‐term) Endovascular revascularisation vs conservative therapy | no estimate extracted | 3 studies · 184 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias, publication bias |
Pain‐free walking distance Endovascular revascularisation vs conservative therapy | no estimate extracted | 5 studies · 345 participants | Moderate Downgraded: inconsistency, publication bias |
Pain‐free walking distance (long‐term) Endovascular revascularisation vs conservative therapy | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 147 participants | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision, publication bias |
Secondary invasive interventions Endovascular revascularisation vs conservative therapy | OR 1.4 [0.7, 2.8] | 4 studies · 395 participants | High |
Quality of life (disease‐specific) Endovascular revascularisation vs conservative therapy | no estimate extracted | 3 studies · 301 participants | High |
Endovascular revascularisation plus conservative therapy compared with conservative therapy alone for intermittent claudication
Population: intermittent claudication
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Maximum walking distance Endovascular revascularisation plus conservative therapy vs conservative therapy alone | no estimate extracted | 3 studies · 432 participants | Moderate Downgraded: inconsistency, publication bias |
Maximum walking distance (long‐term) Endovascular revascularisation plus conservative therapy vs conservative therapy alone | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 106 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, publication bias |
Pain‐free walking distance Endovascular revascularisation plus conservative therapy vs conservative therapy alone | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 305 participants | Moderate Downgraded: inconsistency, publication bias |
Pain‐free walking distance (long‐term) Endovascular revascularisation plus conservative therapy vs conservative therapy alone | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Secondary invasive interventions Endovascular revascularisation plus conservative therapy vs conservative therapy alone | OR 0.27 [0.13, 0.55] | 3 studies · 457 participants | High |
Quality of life (disease‐specific) Endovascular revascularisation plus conservative therapy vs conservative therapy alone | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 330 participants | Moderate Downgraded: inconsistency, publication bias |