ReviewDer Anaesthesist2008
[Anesthesia for carotid artery surgery. Is there a gold standard?].
Review in Der Anaesthesist, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- [Management of anesthesia in endovascular interventions].Der Anaesthesist · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) has remained the first choice of treatment in preventing ischemic stroke due to symptomatic stenosis of the internal carotid artery despite other new available options. During CEA patients are first and foremost at risk of cerebral as well as myocardial ischemia, therefore, maintenance of the oxygen supply to the brain and the myocardium is of outstanding importance requiring reliable monitoring of cerebral and cardiac function. The regional versus general anesthesia debate is an age-old one that has brought few definite answers regarding the impact on postoperative outcome of either anesthetic technique. Up to now, there is little evidence from only a few randomized clinical trials to demonstrate the superiority of either anesthetic technique with respect to outcome parameters. Because the level of evidence in favor of regional anesthesia during CEA can at least be rated between 1(-) and 2(+) the resulting recommendation is grade C. The purpose of the review is to highlight the characteristics and goals of anesthetic management during CEA.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.