Horse chestnut seed extract for chronic venous insufficiency
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Conservative therapy of chronic venous insufficiency (CVI) consists largely of compression treatment. However, this often causes discomfort and has been associated with poor compliance, which renders oral drug treatment an attractive option. OBJECTIVES: To review the evidence from rigorous clinical trials assessing the efficacy and safety of oral horse chestnut seed extract (HCSE) versus placebo, or reference therapy for the treatment of CVI. SEARCH STRATEGY: Publications describing randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of HCSE for chronic venous insufficiency were sought through EMBASE, MEDLINE, Amed, and Phytobase (from inception to January 2001), The Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (Issue 1, 2001) and the Specialised Trials Register of the Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases Group (April 2001). Manufacturers of HCSE preparations and experts on the subject were contacted and asked to contribute published and unpublished material. There were no restrictions on the language of publication. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of oral HCSE mono-preparations for patients with CVI were included. Trials comparing HCSE with placebo or reference medications were included. Trials assessing HCSE as one of several active components in a combination preparation or as a part of a combination treatment were excluded. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were extracted systematically and methodological quality was evaluated using a standard scoring system. The screening of studies, selection, data extraction and the assessment of methodological quality were performed independently by two reviewers. Disagreements concerning evaluation of individual trials were resolved through discussion. MAIN RESULTS: Overall, the included placebo controlled trials suggest an improvement in CVI related signs and symptoms. Leg pain was assessed in six placebo-controlled trials that reported a significant reduction of leg pain in the HCSE groups compared with the placebo groups. One trial, which reported adequate data suggested a weighted mean difference (WMD) of 42.4 mm [95% confidence interval (CI) 34.9-49.9] measured on a 100 mm visual analogue scale. Leg volume was assessed in five placebo-controlled trials. Meta-analysis of four trials (n = 239) reporting adequate data suggested a significant reduction in favour of HCSE compared with placebo (WMD 58.6 ml [95% CI 24.9-92.2]). One trial indicated that HCSE may be as effective as treatment with compression stockings. Adverse effects are usually mild and infrequent. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: The evidence presented implies that HCSE is an efficacious and safe short-term treatment for CVI. However several caveats exist and more rigorous RCTs are required to assess the efficacy of this treatment option.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,004 | 0,008 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,004 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,011 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».