This figure displays a forest plot for 16 studies that compared the effect of multiple treatments on maximal walking distance. When indirectly compared against each other, none of the treatment arms were found to be significantly different. The effect size for cilostazol versus pentoxifylline was 1.08 (95% CI, -0.35 to 2.52, p=0.14), favoring pentoxifylline. The effect size for cilostazol versus endovascular was -0.21 (CI, -1.33 to 0.92, p=0.72), favoring cilostazol. The effect size for cilostazol versus endovascular plus exercise was 0.46 (CI, -1.10 to 2.03, p=0.56), favoring endovascular plus exercise. The effect size for pentoxifylline versus endovascular was -1.29 (CI, -2.84 to 0.26, p=0.10), favoring pentoxifylline. The effect size for pentoxifylline versus endovascular plus exercise was -0.62 (CI, -2.51 to 1.27, p=0.52), favoring pentoxifylline. The effect size for exercise versus cilostazol was -0.27 (CI, -1.29 to 0.76, p=0.61), favoring exercise. The effect size for exercise versus pentoxifylline was 0.82 (CI, -0.67 to 2.30, p=0.28), favoring pentoxifylline. The effect size for exercise versus endovascular was -0.47 (CI, -1.40 to 0.46, p=0.32), favoring exercise. The effect size for exercise versus endovascular plus exercise was 0.20 (CI, -1.23 to 1.63, p=0.79), favoring endovascular plus exercise. The effect size for endovascular versus endovascular plus exercise was 0.67 (CI, -0.71 to 2.05, p=0.34), favoring endovascular plus exercise.

Figure FNetwork meta-analysis of treatment effects versus each other on walking distance in IC patients

Abbreviation: CI=confidence interval.

From: Executive Summary

Cover of Treatment Strategies for Patients With Peripheral Artery Disease
Treatment Strategies for Patients With Peripheral Artery Disease [Internet].
Comparative Effectiveness Reviews, No. 118.
Jones WS, Schmit KM, Vemulapalli S, et al.

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.