↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Phlebotonics for venous insufficiency

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2016
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 (88th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (54th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
10 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
58 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
168 Mendeley
Title
Phlebotonics for venous insufficiency
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd003229.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Maria José Martinez-Zapata, Robin WM Vernooij, Sonia Maria Uriona Tuma, Airton T Stein, Rosa M Moreno, Emilio Vargas, Dolors Capellà, Xavier Bonfill Cosp

Abstract

Chronic venous insufficiency (CVI) is a common condition caused by valvular dysfunction with or without associated obstruction, usually in the lower limbs. It might result in considerable discomfort with symptoms such as pain, itchiness and tiredness in the legs. Patients with CVI may also experience swelling and ulcers. Phlebotonics are a class of drugs often used to treat CVI. This is an update of a review first published in 2005. To assess the efficacy and safety of phlebotonics administered both orally and topically for treatment of signs and symptoms of lower extremity CVI. For this update, the Cochrane Vascular Trials Search Co-ordinator (TSC) searched the Specialised Register (August 2015), as well as the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2015, Issue 7). The reference lists of the articles retrieved by electronic searches were searched for additional citations. We also contacted pharmaceutical companies and searched the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform Search Portal for ongoing studies (last searched in August 2015). Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the efficacy of rutosides, hidrosmine, diosmine, calcium dobesilate, chromocarbe, Centella asiatica, disodium flavodate, french maritime pine bark extract, grape seed extract and aminaftone in patients with CVI at any stage of the disease. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the quality of included RCTs. We estimated the effects of treatment by using risk ratios (RRs), mean differences (MDs) and standardised mean differences (SMDs), according to the outcome assessed. We calculated 95% confidence interval (CIs) and percentage of heterogeneity (I(2)). Additionally, we performed sensitivity analyses. We included 66 RCTs of oral phlebotonics, but only 53 trials provided quantifiable data (involving 6013 participants; mean age 50 years) for the efficacy analysis: 28 for rutosides, 10 hidrosmine and diosmine, nine calcium dobesilate, two Centella asiatica, two aminaftone, two french maritime pine bark extract and one grape seed extract. No studies evaluating topical phlebotonics, chromocarbe, naftazone or disodium flavodate fulfilled the inclusion criteria.Moderate-quality evidence suggests that phlebotonics reduced oedema in the lower legs compared with placebo. Phlebotonics showed beneficial effects among participants including reduced oedema (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.78; I(2) = 20%; 1245 participants) and ankle circumference (MD -4.27 mm, 95% CI -5.61 to -2.93 mm; I(2) = 47%; 2010 participants). Low-quality evidence reveals no difference in the proportion of ulcers cured with phlebotonics compared with placebo (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.13; I(2) = 5%; 461 participants). In addition, phlebotonics showed greater efficacy for trophic disorders, cramps, restless legs, swelling and paraesthesia, when compared with placebo. We identified heterogeneity for the variables of pain, itching, heaviness, quality of life and global assessment by participants. For quality of life, it was not possible to pool the studies because heterogeneity was high. However, high-quality evidence suggests no differences in quality of life for calcium dobesilate compared with placebo (MD -0.60, 95% CI -2.15 to 0.95; I(2) = 40%; 617 participants), and low-quality evidence indicates that in the aminaftone group, quality of life was improved over that reported in the placebo group (MD -10.00, 95% CI -17.01 to - 2.99; 79 participants). Moderate-quality evidence shows that the phlebotonics group had greater risk of non-severe adverse events than the placebo group (RR 1.21, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.41; I(2) = 0; 3975 participants). Gastrointestinal disorders were the most frequently reported adverse events. Moderate-quality evidence shows that phlebotonics may have beneficial effects on oedema and on some signs and symptoms related to CVI such as trophic disorders, cramps, restless legs, swelling and paraesthesia when compared with placebo but can produce more adverse effects. Phlebotonics showed no differences compared with placebo in ulcer healing. Additional high-quality RCTs focused on clinically important outcomes are needed to improve the evidence base.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 168 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 168 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 33 20%
Student > Bachelor 26 15%
Researcher 20 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 8%
Other 10 6%
Other 35 21%
Unknown 30 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 74 44%
Nursing and Health Professions 17 10%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 13 8%
Psychology 7 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 3%
Other 18 11%
Unknown 34 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 09 November 2020.
All research outputs
#1,436,678
of 16,882,949 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,666
of 11,590 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#30,908
of 269,249 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#86
of 186 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,882,949 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,590 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 24.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% 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 269,249 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 186 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.