Evidence map›Paper›PMID 15258749›Full record

ArticleDer Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen2004

[Controversies in the treatment of carotid stenoses. Present state of research and evidence-based medicine].

H-H Eckstein, P Heider, O Wolf, M Barone, M Hanke

Abstract readComparative StudyEnglish Abstract
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

H-H EcksteinAbteilung Gefässchirurgie, Klinikum rechts der Isar der Technischen Universität München. HHEckstein@web.de
P Heider
O Wolf
M Barone
M Hanke

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Endarterectomy for extracranial carotid stenosis has proven to be effective in the prophylaxis of carotid-related strokes by prospective, randomised trials (ECST, NASCET, ACAS, ACST). The safety and efficiency of carotid stenting has to be proven in prospective randomised trials comparing surgery and endovascular treatment.

Indexed as

Endarterectomy, CarotidEvidence-Based MedicineCarotid StenosisCerebral InfarctionHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSurvival RateTreatment Outcome

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.