Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19821268›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2009

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

Kittipan Rerkasem, Peter M Rothwell

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Observational
  14. [Complications after supra-aortic reconstruction].Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen · 2015
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Internal carotid artery rupture caused by carotid shunt insertion.International journal of surgery case reports · 2015
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Kittipan RerkasemDepartment of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand, 50200.
Peter M Rothwell

Funding

Medical Research Council G0500987
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. This is an update of a Cochrane Review originally published in 1996 and previously updated in 2001.

objectivesTo 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: We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (last searched September 2008), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, Issue 1, 2009), MEDLINE (1966 to November 2008), EMBASE (1980 to November 2008) and Index to Scientific and Technical Proceedings (1980 to November 2008). We handsearched journals and conference proceedings, checked reference lists, and contacted experts in the field. 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: Two review authors independently performed the searches and applied the inclusion criteria. We identified one new relevant randomised controlled trial. MAIN

resultsWe included four trials in the review: three trials involving 686 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. AUTHORS'

conclusionsThis 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 between routine shunting versus selective shunting were required. No one method of monitoring in selective shunting has been shown to produce better outcomes.

Indexed as

Carotid ArteriesEndarterectomy, CarotidHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicStroke

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.