Summary of findings 6. Ultrasound‐guided foam sclerotherapy (UGFS) compared to SFJ ligation and stripping (HL/S) for great saphenous vein (GSV) incompetence.
| UGFS compared to HL/S for GSV incompetence | ||||||
| Patient or population: people with GSV incompetence Setting: hospital Intervention: UGFS Comparison: HL/S (surgery) | ||||||
| Outcomes | Anticipated absolute effects * (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | № of participants (studies) | Certainty of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Risk with HL/S (surgery) | Risk with UGFS | |||||
|
Technical success (< 5 years) |
Study population | OR 0.32 (0.11 to 0.94) | 954 (4 studies) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ lowa | ||
| 888 per 1000 | 718 per 1000 (467 to 882) | |||||
|
Technical success (> 5 years) |
Study population | OR 0.09 (0.03 to 0.30) | 525 (3 studies) | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ moderateb |
||
| 929 per 1000 | 542 per 1000 (283 to 798) | |||||
|
Recurrence (< 5 years) |
Study population | OR 1.81 (0.87 to 3.77) | 822 (3 studies) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ lowc | ||
| 168 per 1000 | 267 per 1000 (149 to 431) | |||||
|
Long‐term recurrence (≥ 5 years) |
Study population | OR 1.24 (0.57 to 2.71) | 639 (3 studies) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ lowc | ||
| 380 per 1000 | 432 per 1000 (259 to 624) | |||||
|
Complications (up to 8 years) |
See comment | 639 (3 studies) |
⊕⊝⊝⊝ very lowd | Analysis was prevented as studies reported minor and major complications using different definitions and at varying time points. | ||
|
QoL (up to 8 years) |
See comment | 930 (4 studies) |
⊕⊕⊕⊝ moderateb |
None of the five included studies showed evidence of a difference in QoL scores between the two treatment groups. | ||
| * The risk in the intervention group (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; GSV; great saphenous vein; HL/S: SFJ ligation and stripping; OR: odds ratio; QoL: quality of life; UGFS: ultrasound‐guided foam sclerotherapy | ||||||
| GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High certainty: we are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect. Moderate certainty: we are moderately confident in the effect estimate: the true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different. Low certainty: our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: the true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect. Very low certainty: we have very little confidence in the effect estimate: the true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect. | ||||||
aWe downgraded by two levels due to risk of bias concerns and inconsistency. bWe downgraded by one level due to risk of bias concerns. cWe downgraded by two levels due to risk of bias concerns and inconsistency. dWe downgraded by three levels due to risk of bias concerns, inconsistency and possible publication bias.