Angioplasty (versus non surgical management) for intermittent claudication
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 1998
Gerry Fowkes, Ian N Gillespie
Intermittent claudication is pain in the legs due to muscle ischaemia associated with arterial stenosis or occlusion. Angioplasty is a technique that involves dilatation and recanalisation of a stenosed or occluded artery. The objective of this review was to determine the effects of angioplasty of arteries in the leg when compared with non surgical therapy, or no therapy, for patients with mild to moderate intermittent claudication. The reviewers searched the Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases Group trials register and reference lists of relevant articles. The reviewers also contacted investigators in the field and hand searched recent conference proceedings. Randomised trials of angioplasty for mild or moderate intermittent claudication. One reviewer extracted data and both reviewers assessed trial quality independently. Two trials with a total of 98 participants were included. The average age was 62 years old with 20 women and 789 men. Patients were followed for 15 months in one trial and six years in another. At six months of follow up, mean ankle brachial pressure indices were higher in the angioplasty groups than control groups (weighted mean difference 0.17, 95% confidence interval 0.11 to 0.24). In one trial, walking distances were greater in the angioplasty group, but in the other trial, in which controls underwent an exercise programme, walking distances did not show a greater improvement in the angioplasty group. At two years of follow up in one trial, the angioplasty group were more likely to have a patent artery (odds ratio 5.5, 95% confidence interval 1.8 to 17.0) but not a significantly better walking distance or quality of life. In the other trial, long term follow up at six years demonstrated no significant differences in outcome between the angioplasty and control groups. These limited results suggest that angioplasty may have had a short term benefit, but this may not have been sustained.
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 31 August 2016.
All research outputs
of 12,527,093 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 272,199 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 228 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,093 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,923 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.2. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% 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 272,199 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 228 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.