Skip to main content
. 2020 Nov 3;2020(11):CD003229. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003229.pub4

Labs 2004.

Study characteristics
Methods Study design: randomised, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled
Method of randomisation: computerised random assignment method
Exclusions post randomisation: 7/260 (0.3%), protocol violation
Losses to follow‐up: 21/260 (8%)
Participants Country: Switzerland
Setting: university
Number: 260 patients
Age: 20 to 70 years
Gender: 16 M:201 F
Inclusion criteria: CVI class 1 to 4 (CEAP classification), oedema and symptoms
Exclusion criteria: CVI class 5 to 6 (CEAP classification); other causes of oedema (cardiac, renal, etc.); hypertension with change in treatment within 6 weeks of study start; obesity; peripheral arterial occlusive disease; venous surgery in the past 12 months or sclerotherapy during the past 6 months; irregular menstrual cycle; elevated transaminases; neutropenia; significant renal insufficiency; gastrointestinal disease; allergy to study medication; pregnant or lactating women; unreliable patient (psychiatric disorders, alcoholism, etc.); compression stockings or bandages; diuretics; venotropic medication; antiphlogistic drugs; corticosteroids; analgesics
Interventions Treatment: calcium dobesilate 1500 mg per day
Control: placebo
Duration: 28 days
Follow‐up: 42 days
Outcomes Primary
  • Signs ‐ oedema, reduction in leg volume (≥ 25 mL/litre tissue), circumference of ankle and calf


Secondary
  • Symptoms ‐ pain and discomfort measured by a visual analogue scale

    • Discomfort measured as the sum of frequencies of symptoms: heaviness, tingling and itching

    • Pain measured as the sum of frequencies of symptoms: pain and cramps

    • Total symptoms score (discomfort and pain)

    • Overall efficacy assessed by physician and participant on a 7‐point scale

    • Side effects

Notes Reasons for withdrawal unknown
Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Low risk Quote: "The corresponding boxes were randomized in balanced blocks and were labelled by the sponsor with the study number, the dosage, the batch numbers, with the patient number and with the note 'for clinical trials only'. The randomization was done by BIOMETRIX S. A., CH‐1911 Gland, Switzerland, using appropriate software"
Comment: computer‐generated list of random numbers accepted as a good method for generating a random sequence of participants
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Low risk Quote: "The allocation of the study treatment to each patient was done according to the next available consecutive patient number printed on the prescription card and on the label of the box. This number was recorded on each page of the CRF.¨ and ¨Each investigator was provided with a sealed envelope containing the code for each patients randomisation number"
Comment: seems like a fair method of allocation concealment
Blinding (patients) Low risk Quote: "For the double‐blind treatment period, the boxes, labels, and capsules containing Doxium 500 and placebo were identical in appearance for each drug, to ensure patient and investigator blinding"
Comment: Identical placebo ensures double‐blinding
Blinding (study researchers) Low risk Quote: "For the double‐blind treatment period, the boxes, labels, and capsules containing Doxium 500 and placebo were identical in appearance for each drug, to ensure patient and investigator blinding"
Comment: Identical placebo ensures double‐blinding
Blinding (outcome assessment) Low risk Quote: "For the double‐blind treatment period, the boxes, labels, and capsules containing Doxium 500 and placebo were identical in appearance for each drug, to ensure patient and investigator blinding"
Comment: Identical placebo ensures double‐blinding
Incomplete outcome data Low risk Comment: number of participants in each group described. Adverse events, participant experience, compliance and number of participants who dropped out prematurely reported (29/260 participants)
Selective reporting Low risk Comment: no published protocol identified, and no differences between outcomes reported in the methods section and those reported in the results section
Other bias Low risk Comment: none detected