ReviewTexas Heart Institute journal2000
New developments in endovascular interventions for extracranial carotid stenosis.
Review in Texas Heart Institute journal, 2000. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We provide an overview of recent developments in carotid interventional technique and equipment, including new stents and emboli protection devices. The newer self-expanding stents lessen the problem of external stent compression associated with balloon expandable stents, but precise deployment and the matching (by length) of stents to lesions remain problematic. We also discuss emerging pharmacologic strategies for cerebral protection in stroke. Multiple randomized clinical trials and multicenter registries are under way to compare percutaneous with surgical strategies for the treatment of carotid stenosis. These include the evaluation of emboli protection devices, and, to a lesser degree, intravenous glycoprotein IIb/IIIa antagonists. Other clinical trials are aimed towards refining the ability to stratify patients by risk, in order to identify the subsets that would benefit most from these complex and expensive procedures.
Indexed as
Identifiers
11093412PMC101079W1725844079What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.