↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Exercise for intermittent claudication

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

5 news outlets
1 blog
58 X users
6 Facebook pages
1 Wikipedia page
1 Google+ user


224 Dimensions

Readers on

481 Mendeley
Exercise for intermittent claudication
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd000990.pub4
Pubmed ID

Risha Lane, Amy Harwood, Lorna Watson, Gillian C Leng


Exercise programmes are a relatively inexpensive, low-risk option compared with other, more invasive therapies for treatment of leg pain on walking (intermittent claudication (IC)). This is the fourth update of a review first published in 1998. Our goal was to determine whether an exercise programme was effective in alleviating symptoms and increasing walking treadmill distances and walking times in people with intermittent claudication. Secondary objectives were to determine whether exercise was effective in preventing deterioration of underlying disease, reducing cardiovascular events, and improving quality of life. For this update, the Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Specialised Register (last searched 15 November 2016) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 10) via the Cochrane Register of Studies Online, along with trials registries. Randomised controlled trials of an exercise regimen versus control or versus medical therapy for people with IC due to peripheral arterial disease (PAD). We included any exercise programme or regimen used for treatment of IC, such as walking, skipping, and running. Inclusion of trials was not affected by duration, frequency, or intensity of the exercise programme. Outcome measures collected included treadmill walking distance (time to onset of pain or pain-free walking distance and maximum walking time or maximum walking distance), ankle brachial index (ABI), quality of life, morbidity, or amputation; if none of these was reported, we did not include the trial in this review. For this update (2017), RAL and AH selected trials and extracted data independently. We assessed study quality by using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool. We analysed continuous data by determining mean differences (MDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and dichotomous data by determining risk ratios (RRs) and 95% CIs. We pooled data using a fixed-effect model unless we identified significant heterogeneity, in which case we used a random-effects model. We used the GRADE approach to assess the overall quality of evidence supporting the outcomes assessed in this review. We included two new studies in this update and identified additional publications for previously included studies, bringing the total number of studies meeting the inclusion criteria to 32, and involving a total of 1835 participants with stable leg pain. The follow-up period ranged from two weeks to two years. Types of exercise varied from strength training to polestriding and upper or lower limb exercises; supervised sessions were generally held at least twice a week. Most trials used a treadmill walking test for one of the primary outcome measures. The methodological quality of included trials was moderate, mainly owing to absence of relevant information. Most trials were small and included 20 to 49 participants. Twenty-seven trials compared exercise versus usual care or placebo, and the five remaining trials compared exercise versus medication (pentoxifylline, iloprost, antiplatelet agents, and vitamin E) or pneumatic calf compression; we generally excluded people with various medical conditions or other pre-existing limitations to their exercise capacity.Meta-analysis from nine studies with 391 participants showed overall improvement in pain-free walking distance in the exercise group compared with the no exercise group (MD 82.11 m, 95% CI 71.73 to 92.48, P < 0.00001, high-quality evidence). Data also showed benefit from exercise in improved maximum walking distance (MD 120.36 m, 95% CI 50.79 to 189.92, P < 0.0007, high-quality evidence), as revealed by pooling data from 10 studies with 500 participants. Improvements were seen for up to two years.Exercise did not improve the ABI (MD 0.04, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.08, 13 trials, 570 participants, moderate-quality evidence). Limited data were available for the outcomes of mortality and amputation; trials provided no evidence of an effect of exercise, when compared with placebo or usual care, on mortality (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.39 to 2.17, 5 trials, 540 participants, moderate-quality evidence) or amputation (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.15, 1 trial, 177 participants, low-quality evidence).Researchers measured quality of life using Short Form (SF)-36 at three and six months. At three months, the domains 'physical function', 'vitality', and 'role physical' improved with exercise; however this was a limited finding, as it was reported by only two trials. At six months, meta-analysis showed improvement in 'physical summary score' (MD 2.15, 95% CI 1.26 to 3.04, P = 0.02, 5 trials, 429 participants, moderate-quality evidence) and in 'mental summary score' (MD 3.76, 95% CI 2.70 to 4.82, P < 0.01, 4 trials, 343 participants, moderate-quality evidence) secondary to exercise. Two trials reported the remaining domains of the SF-36. Data showed improvements secondary to exercise in 'physical function' and 'general health'. The other domains - 'role physical', 'bodily pain', 'vitality', 'social', 'role emotional', and 'mental health' - did not show improvement at six months.Evidence was generally limited in trials comparing exercise versus antiplatelet therapy, pentoxifylline, iloprost, vitamin E, and pneumatic foot and calf compression owing to small numbers of trials and participants.Review authors used GRADE to assess the evidence presented in this review and determined that quality was moderate to high. Although results showed significant heterogeneity between trials, populations and outcomes were comparable overall, with findings relevant to the claudicant population. Results were pooled for large sample sizes - over 300 participants for most outcomes - using reproducible methods. High-quality evidence shows that exercise programmes provided important benefit compared with placebo or usual care in improving both pain-free and maximum walking distance in people with leg pain from IC who were considered to be fit for exercise intervention. Exercise did not improve ABI, and we found no evidence of an effect of exercise on amputation or mortality. Exercise may improve quality of life when compared with placebo or usual care. As time has progressed, the trials undertaken have begun to include exercise versus exercise or other modalities; therefore we can include fewer of the new trials in this update.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 58 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 481 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 481 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 71 15%
Student > Bachelor 54 11%
Researcher 34 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 34 7%
Other 28 6%
Other 88 18%
Unknown 172 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 119 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 68 14%
Sports and Recreations 32 7%
Social Sciences 13 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 11 2%
Other 39 8%
Unknown 199 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 87. 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 January 2023.
All research outputs
of 23,818,521 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 12,759 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 445,830 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 243 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,818,521 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,759 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 33.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its peers.
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 445,830 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 243 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.