MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Horse chestnut seed extract for chronic venous insufficiency

2006· reference-entry· en· W4243816333 on OpenAlexaff
Max H Pittler, Edzard Ernst

Bibliographic record

VenueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2006
Typereference-entry
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsVictoria Park
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePlaceboCochrane LibraryChronic venous insufficiencyPhysical therapyRandomized controlled trialAdverse effectSystematic reviewMEDLINEInternal medicineAlternative medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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. Therefore, oral drug treatment is an attractive option. OBJECTIVES: To review the efficacy and safety of oral horse chestnut seed extract (HCSE) versus placebo, or reference therapy, for the treatment of CVI. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases Review Group's Specialised Register (October 2005), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library Issue 3, 2005, MEDLINE (January 1966 to October 2005), EMBASE (January 1980 to October 2005), Allied and Complementary Medicine (AMED) (inception to July 2005) and Phytobase (inception to January 2001) for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of HCSE for chronic venous insufficiency. Manufacturers of HCSE preparations and experts on the subject were contacted for published and unpublished material. There were no restrictions on language. SELECTION CRITERIA: RCTs were included if they compared oral HCSE mono-preparations with placebo, or reference therapy, in people with CVI. 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: Both authors independently selected the studies and, using a standard scoring system, assessed methodological quality and extracted data. Disagreements concerning evaluation of individual trials were resolved through discussion. MAIN RESULTS: Overall, there appeared to be an improvement in CVI related signs and symptoms with HCSE compared with placebo. Leg pain was assessed in seven placebo-controlled trials. Six reported a significant reduction of leg pain in the HCSE groups compared with the placebo groups, while another reported a statistically significant improvement compared with baseline. One trial suggested a weighted mean difference (WMD) of 42.4 mm (95% confidence interval (CI) 34.9 to 49.9) measured on a 100 mm visual analogue scale. Leg volume was assessed in seven placebo-controlled trials. Meta-analysis of six trials (n = 502) suggested a WMD of 32.1ml (95% CI 13.49 to 50.72) in favour of HCSE compared with placebo. One trial indicated that HCSE may be as effective as treatment with compression stockings. Adverse events were usually mild and infrequent. AUTHORS' 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 confirm 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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.079
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0130.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0030.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.006

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.

Opus teacher head0.091
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.260 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations64
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsFrench-language works237,207