Reason for withdrawal from publication
9 March 2018: This review has been withdrawn as it has been replaced by a new review with an expanded scope. The citation for the new review is as follows: Fakhry F, Fokkenrood HJP, Spronk S, Teijink JAW, Rouwet EV, Hunink MGM. Endovascular revascularisation versus conservative management for intermittent claudication. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2018, Issue 3. Art. No.: CD010512. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010512.pub2.
The editorial group responsible for this previously published document have withdrawn it from publication.
Keywords: Humans; Angioplasty, Balloon; Intermittent Claudication; Intermittent Claudication/therapy
Feedback
Angioplasty for intermittent claudication
Summary
1. Under Characteristics of included trials it is noted that the method of randomisation in the Oxford trial is not stated. Were the authors asked about this? (If not, they should be asked.) The notes do not make it clear whether the additional 20 patients recruited later were randomised as well, and how this fitted into the study design. Did the controls in the Oxford study receive aspirin?
2. What dosage of aspirin was used in the trials and for how long?
3. It is puzzling that the Dunedin study (van Rij et al) is not in the CCTR, and that publication is still awaited. Have the authors been asked for details, or at least to inform the reviewers as soon as their paper has been accepted for publication?
4. The results state that "no mention is made of side effects in the [Edinburgh] paper". Were all the angioplasties in the Edinburgh study successful? Since the reviewer was an author of the Edinburgh paper he presumably knows.
5. What were the differences in the exercise taken by the patients in the two trials? How far did the patients follow the "smoking /exercise advice " in the Edinburgh trial?
6. The influence of exercise in the trials deserves a comment in the discussion.
7. The Implications for Research mention cost‐effectiveness, but neither trial says anything on costs. What does angioplasty cost, very approximately?
8. The conclusion that "Further trials are required" seems debatable, since angioplasty is only marginally effective and for a short time, and the Dunedin trial results should be out soon. It furthermore seems possible that local treatment methods other than balloon angioplasty may offer better prospects of improving claudication.
9. Under potential conflicts of interest it should be noted that one of the reviewers was also an author of one of the two trials.
10. The asterisks identifying the main publication for each trial should be inserted (though it is actually obvious which they are).
Reply
Amendments have been made to the updated review to take account of the criticisms. Another abstract reference to the Dunedin trial which has not been published in full yet, has been included.
Contributors
Andrew Herxheimer
What's new
| Date | Event | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 9 March 2018 | Amended | This review has been withdrawn as it has been replaced by a new review with an expanded scope. The citation for the new review is as follows: Fakhry F, Fokkenrood HJP, Spronk S, Teijink JAW, Rouwet EV, Hunink MGM. Endovascular revascularisation versus conservative management for intermittent claudication. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2018, Issue 3. Art. No.: CD010512. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010512.pub2. |
History
Protocol first published: Issue 1, 1996 Review first published: Issue 3, 1996
| Date | Event | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 30 May 2008 | Amended | Converted to new review format. |
| 4 November 1999 | Feedback has been incorporated | Feedback received and added to the review. In response to the feedback, the review authors contacted the authors of the Oxford trial for the method of randomisation. The randomisationmethod of the Oxford trial was added to the Characteristics of included studies table (3 January 2000). |
Sources of support
Internal sources
University of Edinburgh, UK.
External sources
Chief Scientist Office, Scottish Government Health Directorates, The Scottish Government, UK.
Withdrawn from publication for reasons stated in the review