2. Study sample sizes.
| EVLA versus RFA | ||||
| Study | Participants randomised | Participants analysed | ||
| Overall | Overall | EVLA | RFA | |
| Nordon 2011 | 159 | 157 | 78 | 79 |
| Rasmussen 2011a | 250 292 legs |
213 245 legs |
107 121 legs |
106 124 legs |
| Recovery 2009 | 87 legs | 87 legs | 41 legs | 46 legs |
| Shepherd 2010 | 131 | 115 | 55 | 60 |
| Syndor 2017 | 200 | 153 | 79 | 74 |
| EVLA versus EVSA | ||||
| Study | Participants randomised | Participants analysed | ||
| Overall | Overall | EVLA | EVSA | |
| LAST 2014 | 217 237 legs |
199 legs | 92 legs | 107 legs |
| EVLA versus UGFS | ||||
| Study | Participants randomised | Participants analysed | ||
| Overall | Overall | EVLA | UGFS | |
| Magna 2013a | 160 legs | 155 legs | 78 legs | 77 legs |
| Rasmussen 2011a | 250 289 legs |
214 244 legs |
107 121 legs |
107 123 legs |
| Vernermo 2016a | 159 | 145 | 73 | 72 |
| EVLA versus CA | ||||
| Study | Participants randomised | Participants analysed | ||
| Overall | Overall | EVLA | CA | |
| Calik 2019 | 400 | 355 | 174 | 181 |
| EVLA versus MOCA | ||||
| Study | Participants randomised | Participants analysed | ||
| Overall | Overall | EVLA | MOCA | |
| Vähäaho 2019a | 99 | 88 | 33 | 55 |
| EVLA versus HL/S (surgery) | ||||
| Study | Participants randomised | Participants analysed | ||
| Overall | Overall | EVLA | HL/S (surgery) | |
| Darwood 2008 | 118 136 legs |
95 114 legs |
80 legs | 34 legs |
| Flessenkämper 2013b | 301 | 255 | 127 | 128 |
| HELP‐1 2011 | 280 | 237 | 124 | 113 |
| Magna 2013a | 160 legs | 146 legs | 78 legs | 68 legs |
| Pronk 2010 | 122 130 legs |
130 legs | 62 legs | 68 legs |
| Rasmussen 2007 | 121 137 legs |
88 | 47 | 41 |
| Rasmussen 2011a | 250 287 legs |
204 229 legs |
107 121 legs |
97 108 legs |
| RELACS 2012 | 400 | 316 | 173 | 143 |
| Vernermo 2016a | 152 | 134 | 73 | 61 |
| RFA versus UGFS | ||||
| Study | Participants randomised | Participants analysed | ||
| Overall | Overall | RFA | UGFS | |
| Rasmussen 2011a | 250 292 legs |
213 247 legs |
106 124 legs |
107 123 legs |
| RFA versus CA | ||||
| Study | Participants randomised | Participants analysed | ||
| Overall | Overall | RFA | CA | |
| Morrison 2015 | 222 | 208 | 104 | 104 |
| RFA versus MOCA | ||||
| Study | Participants randomised | Participants analysed | ||
| Overall | Overall | RFA | MOCA | |
| Lane 2017 | 170 | 129 | 60 | 69 |
| MARADONA 2019 | 213 | 200 | 99 | 101 |
| Vähäaho 2019a | 98 | 84 | 29 | 55 |
| RFA versus HL/S (surgery) | ||||
| Study | Participants randomised | Participants analysed | ||
| Overall | Overall | RFA | HL/S (surgery) | |
| EVOLVeS 2003 | 85 86 legs |
80 legs | 44 legs | 36 legs |
| Helmy ElKaffas 2011 | 180 | 162 | 81 | 81 |
| Rasmussen 2011a | 250 290 legs |
203 232 legs |
106 124 legs |
97 108 legs |
| Rautio 2002 | 33 | 28 | 15 | 13 |
| Subramonia 2010 | 93 | 88 | 47 | 41 |
| UGFS versus HL/S (surgery) | ||||
| Study | Participants randomised | Participants analysed | ||
| Overall | Overall | UGFS | HL/S (surgery) | |
| FOAM 2010 | 460 | 390 | 213 | 177 |
| Magna 2013a | 160 legs | 145 legs | 77 legs | 68 legs |
| Rasmussen 2011a | 250 286 legs |
204 231 legs |
107 123 legs |
97 108 legs |
| Vernermo 2016a | 155 | 133 | 72 | 61 |
aStudy includes multiple comparisons of different interventions. bStudy includes third treatment arm not included within this review.
CA: cyanoacrylate glue EVLA: endovenous laser ablation EVSA: endovenous steam ablation HL/S: high ligation and stripping MOCA: mechanochemical ablation RFA: radio frequency ablation UGFS: ultrasound‐guided foam sclerotherapy