Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 314

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 18 of the 18 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Compression for preventing recurrence of venous ulcers

Open access
Nelson, E Andrea, Bell-Syer, Sally EM, Cullum, Nicky A, Webster, Joan·2000·Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Up to 1% of adults will have a leg ulcer at some time. The majority of leg ulcers are venous in origin and are caused by high pressure in the veins due to blockage or weakness of the valves in the veins of the leg. Prevention and treatment of venous ulcers is aimed at reducing the pressure either by removing/repairing the veins, or by applying compression bandages/stockings to reduce the pressure in the veins.The majority of venous ulcers heal with compression bandages, however ulcers frequently recur. Clinical guidelines therefore recommend that people continue to wear compression, usually in the form of hosiery (tights, stockings, socks) after their ulcer heals, to prevent recurrence. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of compression (socks, stockings, tights, bandages) in preventing the recurrence of venous ulcers. If compression does prevent ulceration compared with no compression, then to identify whether there is evidence to recommend particular levels of compression (high, medium or low, for example), types of compression, or brands of compression to prevent ulcer recurrence after healing. SEARCH METHODS: For this second update we searched The Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 4 September 2014) which includes the results of regular searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL; The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2014, Issue 8). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs)evaluating compression bandages or hosiery for preventing the recurrence of venous ulcers. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors undertook data extraction and risk of bias assessment independently. MAIN RESULTS: Four trials (979 participants) were eligible for inclusion in this review. One trial in patients with recently healed venous ulcers (n = 153) compared recurrence rates with and without compression and found that compression significantly reduced ulcer recurrence at six months (Risk ratio (RR) 0.46, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.76).Two trials compared high-compression hosiery (equivalent to UK class 3) with moderate-compression hosiery (equivalent to UK class 2). The first study (n=300) found no significant reduction in recurrence at five years follow up with high-compression hosiery compared with moderate-compression (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.12). The second study (n = 338) assessed ulcer recurrence at three years follow up and found that high-compression hosiery reduced recurrence compared with moderate-compression (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.81). Statistically significant heterogeneity precluded meta-analysis of the results from these studies. Patient-reported compliance rates were reported in both trials;,there was significantly higher compliance with medium-compression than with high-compression hosiery in one and no significant difference in the second.A fourth trial (166 patients) found no statistically significant difference in recurrence between two types of medium (UK class 2) compression hosiery (Medi versus Scholl: RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.2).No trials of compression bandages for preventing ulcer recurrence were identified. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is evidence from one trial that compression hosiery reduces rates of reulceration of venous ulcers compared with no compression. Results from one trial suggest that recurrence is lower in high-compression hosiery than in medium-compression hosiery at three years whilst another trial found no difference at 5 years. Rates of patient intolerance of compression hosiery were high. There is insufficient evidence to aid selection of different types, brands, or lengths of compression hosiery.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/14651858.cd002303

Cites

18 of 18 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 18 references

Cited by

See all 314

Metadata

Authors
Nelson, E. A., Bell-Syer, S. E., Cullum, N. A., & Webster, J.
Venue
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Published
2000-10-23
Issue
4
Pages
CD002303-CD002303
ISSN
1361-6137 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1850066364
Cited by
314
References
18
Type
reference entry
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Compression for preventing recurrence of venous ulcers. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/14651858.cd002303
The paper
Nelson, E. A., Bell-Syer, S. E., Cullum, N. A., & Webster, J. (2000). Compression for preventing recurrence of venous ulcers. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd002303

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.