Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20154049›Full record

SynthesisBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2010

Short term and intermediate term comparison of endarterectomy versus stenting for carotid artery stenosis: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled clinical trials.

Pascal Meier, Guido Knapp, Umesh Tamhane, Seemant Chaturvedi, Hitinder S Gurm

Erratum issuedAbstract readComparative StudyMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 27 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 5 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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Anatomical risk factors for ischemic lesions associated with carotid artery stenting.Interventional neuroradiology : journal of peritherapeutic neuroradiology, surgical procedures and related neurosciences · 2014
    Article
  18. Management of symptomatic carotid disease in 2014.Current cardiology reports · 2014
    Review
  19. Clinical relevance of cranial nerve injury following carotid endarterectomy.European journal of vascular and endovascular surgery : the official journal of the European Society for Vascular Surgery · 2014
    Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Pascal MeierUniversity of Michigan Cardiovascular Center, Floor 2A 394, 1500 E Medical Center Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-5853, USA.
Guido Knapp
Umesh Tamhane
Seemant Chaturvedi
Hitinder S Gurm

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo evaluate the relative short term safety and intermediate term efficacy of carotid endarterectomy versus carotid artery stenting.

designSystematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: BIOSIS, Embase, Medline, the Cochrane central register of controlled trials, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts database, ISI Web of Science, and Google scholar and bibliographies, from 1 January 1990 to 25 July 2009. STUDY SELECTION: Randomised controlled trials comparing carotid endarterectomy with carotid artery stenting in patients with carotid artery stenosis with or without symptoms. DATA EXTRACTION: Primary end point was a composite of mortality or stroke. Secondary end points were death, stroke, myocardial infarction, or facial neuropathy (as individual end points), and mortality or disabling stroke (as a composite end point). DATA SYNTHESIS: 11 trials were included (4796 patients); 10 reported on short term outcomes (n=4709) and nine on intermediate term outcomes (1-4 years). The periprocedural risk of mortality or stroke was lower for carotid endarterectomy (odds ratio 0.67, 95% confidence interval 0.47 to 0.95; P=0.025) than for carotid stenting, mainly because of a decreased risk of stroke (0.65, 0.43 to 1.00; P=0.049), whereas the risk of death (1.14, 0.56 to 2.31; P=0.727) and the composite end point mortality or disabling stroke (0.74, 0.53 to 1.05; P=0.088) did not differ significantly. The odds of periprocedural myocardial infarction (2.69, 1.06 to 6.79; P=0.036) or cranial nerve injury (10.2, 4.0 to 26.1; P<0.001) was higher in the carotid endarterectomy group than in the carotid stenting group. In the intermediate term, the two treatments did not differ significantly for stroke or death (hazard ratio 0.90, 95% confidence interval 0.74 to 1.1; P=0.314).

conclusionsCarotid endarterectomy was found to be superior to carotid artery stenting for short term outcomes but the difference was not significant for intermediate term outcomes; this difference was mainly driven by non-disabling stroke. Significantly fewer cranial nerve injuries and myocardial infarctions occurred with carotid artery stenting.

Indexed as

StentsCarotid StenosisEndarterectomy, CarotidHumansMyocardial InfarctionOdds RatioRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRisk FactorsStrokeTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID20154049
PMCPMC2821470

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.