Search PubMed⌕ Search

PubMed · 15285537

Do we need a better classification than CEAP?

Abstract

The CEAP classification, C Clinical, E Etiology, A Anatomy and P Pathophysiology, corresponds to the four main headings of chronic venous disease. Each heading is composed of clearly defined subheadings. This classification is therefore complete and well structured and, as a result of this innovation, far superior to previous classifications. On the other hand, this classification is complex and difficult to use for many clinicians. It also lacks a whole series of important items, such as vascular history, corona phlebectatica, widely used in Europe, and a varicose veins score. More complete and more rigorous studies could be conducted if these items were included under the "C" heading. A number of improvements have been proposed over recent years. They are designed to simplify the CEAP, without introducing any structural changes. The scientific justification for these simple modifications would be an improvement of the coherence. However, these proposals must be validated before being presented to the American Venous Forum. One of the most recent proposals is the development of computer software which would considerably facilitate the use of this classification. Further studies are necessary to demonstrate the value of these modifications.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

A Cornu-Thénard, J Fr Uhl, P H Carpentier. 2004. Do we need a better classification than CEAP?. https://doi.org/10.1080/00015458.2004.11679554

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Iron regulation.

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Chronic Disease↗

The long-term effect of multidisciplinary back training: a systematic review.

STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review of randomized controlled trials. OBJECTIVES: To determine the long-term effect of multidisciplinary back training on the work participation of patients with nonspecific chronic low back pain. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Chronic low back pain is influenced by multiple factors. Multidisciplinary back training represents one of the options to take this multiplicity into account. So far, only evidence of the short-term effectiveness of this approach in terms of work participation is available. METHODS: Electronic databases were searched and the references of various articles were screened for relevant publications. Ten studies met the inclusion criteria. All included studies were evaluated for their methodologic quality. RESULTS: Five of the studies had a low methodologic quality. All high-quality studies found a positive effect on at least one of the 4 outcome measures used. Based on our criteria, effectiveness was found for the outcome measures of work participation and quality of life. No effectiveness was found for experienced pain and functional status. The intensity of the intervention seems to have no substantial influence on the effectiveness of the intervention. CONCLUSION: In the long-term, multidisciplinary back training has a positive effect on work participation in patients with nonspecific chronic low back pain.

Chronic Disease↗