Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 Manufacturers of HCSE preparations and experts on the subject were contacted and asked to contribute published and unpublished material.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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".