Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 366

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 418 of the 418 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Management of chronic venous disorders of the lower limbs. Guidelines According to Scientific Evidence. Part II

Nicolaides, Andrew, Kakkos, Stavros, Baekgaard, Niels, Comerota, Anthony, de Maeseneer, Marianne, Eklof, Bo, Giannoukas, Athanasios, Lugli, Marzia, Maleti, Oscar, Mansilha, Armando, Myers, Ken A., Nelzén, Olle, Partsch, Hugo, Perrin, Michel·2020·International Angiology

Abstract

Disclaimer Due to the evolving field of medicine, new research may, in due course, modify the recommendations presented in this document. At the time of publication, every attempt has been made to ensure that the information provided is up to date and accurate. It is the responsibility of the treating physician to determine the best treatment for the patient. The authors, committee members, editors, and publishers cannot be held responsible for any legal issues that may arise from the citation of this statement. Rules of evidence Management of patients with chronic venous disorders has been traditionally undertaken subjectively among physicians, often resulting in less than optimal strategies. In this document, a systematic approach has been developed with recommendations based upon cumulative evidence from the literature. Levels of evidence and grades of recommendation range from Level I and Grade A to Level III and Grade C. Level I evidence and Grade A recommendations derive from scientifically sound randomized clinical trials in which the results are clear-cut. Level II evidence and Grade B recommendations derive from clinical studies in which the results among trials often point to inconsistencies. Level III evidence and Grade C recommendations result from poorly designed trials or from small case series.1, 2 Meta-analysis Meta-analyses are included in the present document but there should be caution as to their possible abuse. Certain studies may be included in a meta-analysis carelessly without sufficiently understanding of substantive issues, ignoring relevant variables, using heterogenous findings or interpreting results with a bias.3 It has been demonstrated that the outcomes of 12 large randomized controlled trials were not predicted accurately 35% of the time by the meta-analyses published previously on the same topics.4

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 · 10.23736/s0392-9590.20.04388-6

Cites

418 of 418 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 418 references

Cited by

See all 366

Metadata

Authors
Nicolaides, A., Kakkos, S., Baekgaard, N., Comerota, A., de Maeseneer, M., Eklof, B., Giannoukas, A., Lugli, M., Maleti, O., Mansilha, A., Myers, K. A., Nelzén, O., Partsch, H., & Perrin, M.
Venue
International Angiology
Published
2020-07
Volume
39
Issue
3
Pages
1-208
ISSN
  • 0392-9590
  • 1827-1839
OpenAlex
W2098750815
Cited by
366
References
418
FWCI
14.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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: Management of chronic venous disorders of the lower limbs. Guidelines According to Scientific Evidence. Part II. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.23736/s0392-9590.20.04388-6
The paper
Nicolaides, A., Kakkos, S., Baekgaard, N., Comerota, A., de Maeseneer, M., Eklof, B., Giannoukas, A., Lugli, M., Maleti, O., Mansilha, A., Myers, K. A., Nelzén, O., Partsch, H., & Perrin, M. (2020). Management of chronic venous disorders of the lower limbs. Guidelines According to Scientific Evidence. Part II. International Angiology. https://doi.org/10.23736/s0392-9590.20.04388-6

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.