↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

CHIVA method for the treatment of chronic venous insufficiency

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (81st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
3 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages
wikipedia
4 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
36 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
134 Mendeley
Title
CHIVA method for the treatment of chronic venous insufficiency
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009648.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sergi Bellmunt-Montoya, Jose Maria Escribano, Jaume Dilme, Maria José Martinez-Zapata

Abstract

Many surgical approaches are available to treat varicose veins secondary to chronic venous insufficiency. One of the least invasive techniques is the ambulatory conservative hemodynamic correction of venous insufficiency method (cure conservatrice et hémodynamique de l'insuffisance veineuse en ambulatoire (CHIVA)), an approach based on venous hemodynamics with deliberate preservation of the superficial venous system. This is an update of the review first published in 2013. To compare the efficacy and safety of the CHIVA method with alternative therapeutic techniques to treat varicose veins. The Trials Search Co-ordinator of the Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases Group searched the Specialised Register (April 2015), the Cochrane Register of Studies (2015, Issue 3) and clinical trials databases. The review authors searched PubMed (April 2015). There was no language restriction. We contacted study authors to obtain more information when necessary. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the CHIVA method versus any other treatments. Two review authors independently selected and evaluated the studies. One review author extracted data and performed the quantitative analysis. Two independent review authors extracted data from the selected papers. We calculated the risk ratio (RR), mean difference (MD), the number of people needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB), and the number of people needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH), with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using Review Manager 5. No new studies were identified for this update. We included four RCTs with 796 participants (70.5% women). Three RCTs compared the CHIVA method with vein stripping, and one RCT compared the CHIVA method with compression dressings in people with venous ulcers. We judged the quality of the evidence of the included studies as low to moderate due to imprecision caused by the low number of events and because the studies were open. The overall risk of bias across studies was high because neither participants nor outcome assessors were blinded to the interventions. The primary endpoint, clinical recurrence, pooled between studies over a follow-up of 3 to 10 years, showed more favorable results for the CHIVA method than for vein stripping (721 people; RR 0.63; 95% CI 0.51 to 0.78; I(2) = 0%, NNTB 6; 95% CI 4 to 10) or compression dressings (47 people; RR 0.23; 95% CI 0.06 to 0.96; NNTB 3; 95% CI 2 to 17). Only one study reported data on quality of life (presented graphically) and these results significantly favored the CHIVA method.The vein stripping group had a higher risk of side effects than the CHIVA group; specifically, the RR for bruising was 0.63 (95% CI 0.53 to 0.76; NNTH 4; 95% CI 3 to 6) and the RR for nerve damage was 0.05 (95% CI 0.01 to 0.38; I(2) = 0%; NNTH 12; 95% CI 9 to 20). There were no statistically significant differences between groups regarding the incidence of limb infection and superficial vein thrombosis. The CHIVA method reduces recurrence of varicose veins and produces fewer side effects than vein stripping. However, we based these conclusions on a small number of trials with a high risk of bias as the effects of surgery could not be concealed and the results were imprecise due to low number of events. New RCTs are needed to confirm these results and to compare CHIVA with approaches other than open surgery.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 134 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 132 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 33 25%
Student > Bachelor 18 13%
Researcher 14 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 8%
Student > Postgraduate 8 6%
Other 22 16%
Unknown 28 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 58 43%
Nursing and Health Professions 26 19%
Psychology 5 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 2%
Social Sciences 2 1%
Other 10 7%
Unknown 30 22%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 19 September 2020.
All research outputs
#3,096,346
of 18,912,409 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,682
of 11,887 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#54,719
of 296,155 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#171
of 256 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,912,409 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,887 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 26.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% 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 296,155 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 256 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.