↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Physical exercise for the treatment of non‐ulcerated chronic venous insufficiency

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
36 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
300 Mendeley
Title
Physical exercise for the treatment of non‐ulcerated chronic venous insufficiency
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010637.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Diego N Araujo, Cibele Td Ribeiro, Alvaro Cc Maciel, Selma S Bruno, Guilherme Af Fregonezi, Fernando Al Dias

Abstract

Chronic venous insufficiency (CVI) is a common disease that causes discomfort and impairs the quality of life of affected persons. Treatments such as physical exercise that aim to increase the movement of the ankle joint and strengthen the muscle pump in the calf of the leg may be useful to reduce the symptoms of CVI. To assess and summarise the existing clinical evidence on the efficacy and safety of physical exercise programmes for the treatment of individuals with non-ulcerated CVI. The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist (CIS) searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register (May 2016). In addition, the CIS searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 4) and trial databases for details of ongoing or unpublished studies. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing exercise with no exercise programmes. Two review authors independently assessed the search results and selected eligible studies. We resolved disagreements by discussion. We summarised and double-checked details from included studies. We attempted to contact trial authors for missing data, but obtained no further information. We included two trials involving 54 participants with CVI. Many of our review outcomes were not reported or reported by only one of the two studies. The intensity of disease signs and symptoms was measured in both studies but using different scales; we were therefore unable to pool the data. One study reported no difference between the exercise and control groups whereas the second reported a reduction in symptoms in the exercise group. In one study, increases in change in ejection fraction compared with baseline (mean difference (MD) 4.88%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.16 to 6.60; 30 participants; P < 0.00001), half venous refilling time (MD 4.20 seconds, 95% CI 3.28 to 5.12; 23 participants; P < 0.00001) and total venous refilling time (MD 9.40 seconds, 95% CI 7.77 to 11.03; 23 participants; P < 0.00001) were observed in the exercise group compared with the control group. One study reported no difference between the exercise and control groups with regard to quality of life or ankle range of motion. Although muscle strength assessed by dynamometry at slow speed did not differ between the two groups in this study, variable peak torque at fast speed was lower in the control group than in the exercise group (2.8 ± 0.9 compared with -0.3 ± 0.6, P < 0.03). The incidence of venous leg ulcers, incidence of surgical intervention to treat symptoms related to CVI and exercise capacity were not assessed or reported in either of the included trials. We rated both included studies as at high risk of bias; hence, these data should be interpreted carefully. Due to the small number of studies and small sample size, we were not able to verify indirectness and publication bias. Therefore, we judged the overall quality of evidence as very low according to the GRADE approach. There is currently insufficient evidence available to assess the efficacy of physical exercise in people with CVI. Future research into the effect of physical exercise should consider types of exercise protocols (intensity, frequency and time), sample size, blinding and homogeneity according to the severity of disease.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 300 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
India 1 <1%
Unknown 299 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 46 15%
Student > Bachelor 43 14%
Researcher 25 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 14 5%
Other 47 16%
Unknown 103 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 77 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 56 19%
Sports and Recreations 12 4%
Psychology 9 3%
Social Sciences 7 2%
Other 24 8%
Unknown 115 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 April 2019.
All research outputs
#14,536,679
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#9,813
of 11,484 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#209,694
of 416,359 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#177
of 197 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,484 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 39.9. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 416,359 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 197 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.