The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Prevalence of varicose veins and chronic venous insufficiency in men and women in the general population: Edinburgh Vein Study.
Open accessAbstract
STUDY OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence of varicose veins and chronic venous insufficiency (CVI) in the general population. DESIGN: Cross sectional survey. SETTING: City of Edinburgh. PARTICIPANTS: Men and women aged 18-64 years selected randomly from age-sex registers of 12 general practices. MAIN RESULTS: In 1566 subjects examined, the age adjusted prevalence of trunk varices was 40% in men and 32% in women (p < or = 0.01). This sex difference was mostly a result of higher prevalence of mild trunk varices in men. More than 80% of all subjects had mild hyphenweb and reticular varices. The age adjusted prevalence of CVI was 9% in men and 7% in women (p < or = 0.05). The prevalence of all categories of varices and of CVI increased with age (p < or = 0.001). No relation was found with social class. CONCLUSIONS: Approximately one third of men and women aged 18-64 years had trunk varices. In contrast with the findings in most previous studies, mainly conducted in the 1960s and 1970s, chronic venous insufficiency and mild varicose veins were more common in men than women. No evidence of bias in the study was found to account for this sex difference. Changes in lifestyle or other factors might be contributing to an alteration in the epidemiology of venous disease.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions
Fleiss, J. L., Levin, B., & Paik, M. C. (2003) · Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics · doi:10.1002/0471445428 · Cited by 18,646
Cited by
Bergan, J. J., Schmid-Schönbein, G. W., Smith, P. D. C., Nicolaides, A. N., Boisseau, M. R., & Eklof, B. (2006) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmra055289 · Cited by 933
Editor's Choice – Management of Chronic Venous Disease
Wittens, C., Davies, A. H., Bækgaard, N., Broholm, R., Cavezzi, A., Chastanet, S., de Wolf, M., Eggen, C., Giannoukas, A., Gohel, M., et al. (2015) · European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery · doi:10.1016/j.ejvs.2015.02.007 · Cited by 852
Venous ulcer: epidemiology, physiopathology, diagnosis and treatment
Abbade, L. P. F., & Lastória, S. (2005) · International Journal of Dermatology · doi:10.1111/j.1365-4632.2004.02456.x · Cited by 359
Standard of care for lipedema in the United States
Herbst, K. L., Kahn, L. A., Iker, E., Ehrlich, C., Wright, T., McHutchison, L., Schwartz, J., Sleigh, M., Donahue, P. M., Lisson, K. H., et al. (2021) · Phlebology: The Journal of Venous Disease · doi:10.1177/02683555211015887 · Cited by 269
Trends in the incidence of venous stasis syndrome and venous ulcer: A 25-year population-based study
Heit, J. A., Rooke, T. W., Silverstein, M. D., Mohr, D. N., Lohse, C. M., Petterson, T. M., O'Fallon, W. M., & Melton, L. J. (2001) · Journal of Vascular Surgery · doi:10.1067/mva.2001.113308 · Cited by 263
Metadata
- Authors
- Evans, C. J., Fowkes, F. G., Ruckley, C. V., & Lee, A. J.
- Venue
- Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 1999-03
- Volume
- 53
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 149-153
- ISSN
- 0141-7681 (ISSN-L)
- 0143-005X
- 1470-2738
- OpenAlex
- W1995080680
- Cited by
- 918
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 12.65
- Type
- journal article
- 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: Prevalence of varicose veins and chronic venous insufficiency in men and women in the general population: Edinburgh Vein Study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/jech.53.3.149
- The paper
- Evans, C. J., Fowkes, F. G., Ruckley, C. V., & Lee, A. J. (1999). Prevalence of varicose veins and chronic venous insufficiency in men and women in the general population: Edinburgh Vein Study. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.53.3.149
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.
