Evidence map›Paper›PMID 12076386›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2002

Routine or selective carotid artery shunting for carotid endarterectomy (and different methods of monitoring in selective shunting).

R Bond, K Rerkasem, C Counsell, R Salinas, R Naylor, C P Warlow, P M Rothwell

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2002. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Perioperative results eversion carotid endarterectomy in bilateral symptomatic stenosis.Medical archives (Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina) · 2015
    Article
  7. Carotid endarterectomy with contralateral carotid occlusion: is shunting necessary?The International journal of angiology : official publication of the International College of Angiology, Inc · 2012
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Carotid endarterectomy-the evidence.Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine · 2002
    Review
  13. Carotid Endarterectomy: The Need forAsian journal of neurosurgery
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

R BondStroke Prevention Unit, Department of Clinical Neurology, Radcliffe Infirmary Hospital, Woodstock Road, Oxford, Oxfordshire, UK, OX9 3LL. richard.bond@clneuro.ox.ac.uk
K Rerkasem
C Counsell
R Salinas
R Naylor
C P Warlow
P M Rothwell

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTemporary interruption of cerebral blood flow during carotid endarterectomy can be avoided by using a shunt across the clamped section of the carotid artery. This may improve outcome.

objectivesThe objective of this review was to assess the effect of routine versus selective, or never, shunting during carotid endarterectomy, and to assess the best method for selecting patients for shunting. SEARCH STRATEGY: For the original review the authors searched the Cochrane Stroke Group trials register, Medline (1966 to 1994), Embase (1980 to 1995) and Index to Scientific and Technical Proceedings (1980 to 1994). They also hand searched Annals of Surgery (1981 to 1995), British Journal of Surgery (1985 to 1995), European Journal of Vascular Surgery (1988 to 1995) and World Journal of Surgery (1978 to 1995). For the updated review, for the dates January 1994 - December 2000 we: 1. Repeated all these searches performed for the original review and developed more comprehensive search strategies for Medline and Embase. The Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register was last searched in May 2001. 2. Hand searched the Journal of Vascular Surgery, Stroke, Annals of Vascular Surgery, American Journal of Surgery and Cardiovascular Surgery. 3. Hand searched the abstracts from the International Stroke Conference, AGM of the Vascular Surgical Society (UK), AGM of the Association of Surgeons of Great Britain and Ireland and the Annual Meeting of the Society for Vascular Surgery (USA). 4. Searched reference lists from all relevant trials All the authors of studies included in the initial review, and other authors known to have published relevant work, were contacted requesting information about further published or unpublished data. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and quasi-randomised trials of routine shunting compared with no shunting or selective shunting, and trials that compared different shunting policies in patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: For the original review two reviewers independently performed the searches and applied the inclusion criteria. The data were extracted by one reviewer and double-checked. Trial quality was assessed. During the update, two reviewers independently performed the searches and applied the inclusion criteria. No new relevant randomised controlled trials were found. MAIN

resultsDespite recommendation from the original review that further studies were required, no new trials of adequate quality and fitting the inclusion criteria were found. The initial review included three trials. Two trials involving 590 patients compared routine shunting with no shunting. The other trial involving 131 patients compared shunting with a combination of electroencephalographic and carotid pressure measurement, with shunting by carotid pressure measurement alone. Allocation was adequately concealed in one trial, and one trial was quasi-randomised. Analysis was by intention-to-treat where possible. For routine versus no shunting, there was no significant difference in the rate of all stroke, ipsilateral stroke or death up to 30 days after surgery, although data were limited. There was no significant difference between the risk of ipsilateral stroke in patients selected for shunting with the combination of electroencephalographic and carotid pressure assessment compared to pressure assessment alone, although again the data were limited. REVIEWER'S

conclusionsWhen first published in 1995, this review concluded that the data available were too limited to either support or refute the use of routine or selective shunting in carotid endarterectomy. It was suggested that large scale randomised trials using no shunting as the control group were required. No one method of monitoring in selective shunting has been shown to produce better outcomes. No further prospective randomised or quasi-randomised trials have been performed since then and the conclusions therefore remain unchanged.

Indexed as

Arteriovenous Shunt, SurgicalEndarterectomy, CarotidHumans

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.