Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Treatment for telangiectasias and reticular veins

This is not the most recent version

view the current version 12 October 2021

Information

DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD012723Copy DOI
Database:
  1. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Version published:
  1. 10 July 2017see what's new
Type:
  1. Intervention
Stage:
  1. Protocol
Cochrane Editorial Group:

  1. Cochrane Vascular Group

Copyright:
  1. Copyright © 2017 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Article metrics

Altmetric:

Cited by:

Cited 0 times via Crossref Cited-by Linking

Collapse

Authors

  • Luis CU Nakano

    Correspondence to: Vascular Surgery, Escola Paulista de Medicina, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil

    [email protected]

    [email protected]

  • Daniel G Cacione

    Department of Surgery, UNIFESP – Escola Paulista de Medicina, São Paulo, Brazil

  • Jose CC Baptista‐Silva

    Evidence Based Medicine, Cochrane Brazil, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil

  • Ronald LG Flumignan

    Department of Surgery, Division of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil

Contributions of authors

LCUN: protocol drafting, acquiring trial reports, trial selection, data extraction, data analysis, data interpretation, review drafting, and future review updates, guarantor of the review.
DGC: protocol drafting, trial selection, data extraction, data analysis, data interpretation, review drafting, and future review updates.
JCCB: protocol drafting, trial selection, data interpretation, review drafting, and future review updates.
RLGF: protocol drafting, trial selection, data extraction, data analysis, data interpretation, review drafting, and future review updates.

Sources of support

Internal sources

  • No sources of support supplied

External sources

  • Chief Scientist Office, Scottish Government Health Directorates, The Scottish Government, UK.

    The Cochrane Vascular editorial base is supported by the Chief Scientist Office.

Declarations of interest

LCUN: none known.
DGC: none known.
JCCB: none known.
RLGF: none known.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Cochrane Vascular, Cochrane Brazil and the Division of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery of Universidade Federal de Sao Paulo, Brazil for their methodological support.

Version history

Published

Title

Stage

Authors

Version

2021 Oct 12

Treatment for telangiectasias and reticular veins

Review

Luis CU Nakano, Daniel G Cacione, Jose CC Baptista-Silva, Ronald LG Flumignan

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD012723.pub2

2017 Jul 10

Treatment for telangiectasias and reticular veins

Protocol

Luis CU Nakano, Daniel G Cacione, Jose CC Baptista‐Silva, Ronald LG Flumignan

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD012723

Notes

Parts of the methods section of this protocol are based on a standard template established by Cochrane Vascular.

PICOs

Population
Intervention
Comparison
Outcome

The PICO model is widely used and taught in evidence-based health care as a strategy for formulating questions and search strategies and for characterizing clinical studies or meta-analyses. PICO stands for four different potential components of a clinical question: Patient, Population or Problem; Intervention; Comparison; Outcome.

See more on using PICO in the Cochrane Handbook.

Table 1. Is sclerotherapy more effective in treating telangiectasias compared to laser therapy

Sclerotherapy versus laser therapy for telangiectasias

Patient or population: people with telangiectasias and reticular veins in the lower limb

Settings: secondary care, outpatient

Intervention: sclerotherapy

Comparison: laser therapy

Outcomes

Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI)

Relative effect
(95% CI)

No of Participants
(studies)

Quality of the evidence
(GRADE)

Comments

Assumed risk

Corresponding risk

Sclerotherapy

Laser therapy

Clinically or photographically assessed resolution or improvement (or both)

[range of scale or scale description]

[follow up]

[value] per 1000

[value] per 1000

RR [value] ([value] to [value])

[value]
([value])

⊕⊝⊝⊝
very low

⊕⊕⊝⊝
low

⊕⊕⊕⊝
moderate

⊕⊕⊕⊕
high

Adverse events

(including hyperpigmentation, bruising, anaphylaxis, necrosis of the skin)

[range of scale or scale description]

[follow up]

[value] per 1000

[value] per 1000

RR [value] ([value] to [value])

[value]
([value])

⊕⊝⊝⊝
very low

⊕⊕⊝⊝
low

⊕⊕⊕⊝
moderate

⊕⊕⊕⊕
high

Pain during procedure and post procedure

[range of scale or scale description]

[follow‐up]

The mean pain score ranged across control groups from
[value][measure]

The mean pain score in the intervention groups was
[value] [lower/higher]

[value]
([value])

⊕⊝⊝⊝
very low

⊕⊕⊝⊝
low

⊕⊕⊕⊝
moderate

⊕⊕⊕⊕
high

Recurrence

[follow‐up]

[value] per 1000

[value] per 1000
([value] to [value])

RR [value] ([value] to [value])

[value]
([value])

⊕⊝⊝⊝
very low

⊕⊕⊝⊝
low

⊕⊕⊕⊝
moderate

⊕⊕⊕⊕
high

Time to resolution

[range of scale or scale description]

[follow‐up]

The mean time ranged across control groups from
[value][measure]

The mean time in the intervention groups was
[value] [lower/higher]

[value]
([value])

⊕⊝⊝⊝
very low

⊕⊕⊝⊝
low

⊕⊕⊕⊝
moderate

⊕⊕⊕⊕
high

Quality of life

[range of scale or scale description]

[follow‐up]

The mean quality of life score ranged across control groups from
[value][measure]

The mean quality of life score in the intervention groups was
[value] [lower/higher]

[value]
([value])

⊕⊝⊝⊝
very low

⊕⊕⊝⊝
low

⊕⊕⊕⊝
moderate

⊕⊕⊕⊕
high

*The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).
CI: Confidence interval; RR: Risk ratio

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect.
Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate.
Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate.
Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate.

Figures and Tables -
Table 1. Is sclerotherapy more effective in treating telangiectasias compared to laser therapy
Navigate to table in Protocol