Skip to main content
Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

< Back to Article

Fig 1.

Flow diagram of study selection.

More »

Fig 1 Expand

Table 1.

Main characteristics of 13 studies included in the meta-analysis.

More »

Table 1 Expand

Fig 2.

Summary of risk of bias for RCTs (RevMan 5.3).

Red: High risk; Yellow: Unclear risk; Green: Low risk * Because the studies compared bed rest versus ambulation, it is too easy for the patients to find out which group they are in. So it is not likely to fulfill the requirement of blinding of participants. ** Details about the reasons for this assessment are listed in the supporting information S3 Table.

More »

Fig 2 Expand

Table 2.

Quality assessment of cohort studies based on the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (range, 1–9 stars).

More »

Table 2 Expand

Fig 3.

Funnel plot of studies included.

More »

Fig 3 Expand

Fig 4.

Begg’s and Egger’s tests for publication bias of included studies.

More »

Fig 4 Expand

Fig 5.

Meta-analysis of the incidence of primary end events among 1674 DVT patients with early ambulation and 1595 DVT patients with bed rest.

More »

Fig 5 Expand

Table 3.

Summary of subgroup and sensitivity analyses of primary endpoints.

More »

Table 3 Expand

Fig 6.

Meta-analysis of VAS change.

In this figure, the data in “Mean” and “SD” column is the mean change of VAS rather than initial mean VAS.

More »

Fig 6 Expand

Fig 7.

Subgroup analysis of VAS change during the treatment period.

More »

Fig 7 Expand

Fig 8.

Meta-analysis of change of circumference of affected limb.

More »

Fig 8 Expand