MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Horse chestnut seed extract for chronic venous insufficiency

2004· review· en· W4245384678 on OpenAlexaff
MH Pittler, E. Ernst

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2004
Typereview
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsVictoria Park
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePlaceboChronic venous insufficiencyCochrane LibraryMeta-analysisRandomized controlled trialClinical trialPhysical therapyAdverse effectMEDLINEInternal 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 alternative. OBJECTIVES: To review the evidence from rigorous clinical trials assessing the efficacy and safety of oral horse chestnut seed extract (HCSE) versus placebo, or other treatments for CVI. SEARCH STRATEGY: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of HCSE for chronic venous insufficiency were sought through EMBASE (inception to December 2001), MEDLINE and AMED (from inception to February 2004), The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, Issue 1, 2004), the Specialised Trials Register of the Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases Group (last searched February 2004), and Phytobase (from inception to January 2001, no longer operational). Manufacturers of HCSE preparations and experts on the subject were contacted for published and unpublished material.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 other treatments, in patients 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: Two reviewers independently selected and assessed methodological quality of the studies using a standardised scoring system, 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 six placebo-controlled trials. Meta-analysis of five trials (n = 289) suggested a significant reduction in favour of HCSE compared with placebo (WMD 56.3 ml [95% CI 24.1 to 88.5]). One trial indicated that HCSE may be as effective as compression stockings at reducing leg volume. Adverse events were usually mild and infrequent. REVIEWERS' 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 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)0.025
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad), 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 score0.333
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0250.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0210.004
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0050.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.010

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 head0.164
GPT teacher head0.406
Teacher spread0.242 · 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

Citations38
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Cochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsFrench-language works237,207