All clinical definitions of PTS were highly associated with the reference standard of ambulatory venous pressure, with higher AVPs observed in the more severely affected groups. The ability of the scoring systems to discriminate between DVT and control legs as well as the observed prevalence of PTS differed substantially. In part this is due to the considerable overlap in AVP in the different clinical groups, reflecting the fact that our reference standard has substantial deficiencies. No clear advantage was found in any one system of classification over the rest.

Low-quality evidence suggests that elastic compression stockings may reduce the occurrence of PTS after DVT. We downgraded the quality of evidence owing to considerable heterogeneity between studies and lack of or unclear risk of blinding due to clinical assessment scores. No serious adverse effects occurred in these studies. Large randomised controlled trials are needed to confirm these findings because of current lack of high-quality evidence and considerable heterogeneity.

No abstract

No abstract

Background Venous ulcers (also known as varicose or venous stasis ulcers) are a chronic, recurring and debilitating condition that affects up to 1% of the population. Best practice documents and expert opinion suggests that the removal of devitalised tissue from venous ulcers (debridement) by any one of six methods helps to promote healing. However, to date there has been no review of the evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to support this. Objectives To determine the effects of different debriding methods or debridement versus no debridement, on the rate of debridement and wound healing in venous leg ulcers. Search methods In February 2015 we searched: The Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register; The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid EMBASE and EBSCO CINAHL. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting. In addition we handsearched conference proceedings, journals not cited in MEDLINE, and the bibliographies of all retrieved publications to identify potential studies. We made contact with the pharmaceutical industry to enquire about any completed studies. Selection criteria We included RCTs, either published or unpublished, which compared two methods of debridement or compared debridement with no debridement. We presented study results in a narrative form, as meta-analysis was not possible. Data collection and analysis Independently, two review authors completed all study selection, data extraction and assessment of trial quality; resolution of disagreements was completed by a third review author. Main results We identified 10 RCTs involving 715 participants. Eight RCTs evaluated autolytic debridement and included the following agents or dressings: biocellulose wound dressing (BWD), non-adherent dressing, honey gel, hydrogel (gel formula), hydrofibre dressing, hydrocolloid dressings, dextranomer beads, Edinburgh University Solution of Lime (EUSOL) and paraffin gauze. Two RCTs evaluated 1 Debridement for venous leg ulcers (Review)