ReviewNeuroradiology2010
Intracranial stenting in atherosclerotic disease-recent results and challenges to face.
Review in Neuroradiology, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- High-resolution 3D X-ray imaging of intracranial nitinol stents.Neuroradiology · 2012Article
- [Vascular interventions in the head and neck region. Part 1: Recanalization procedures].Der Radiologe · 2011Review
- On limitations of studies and limitations of therapy options for carotid stenosis: why play golf with only a sand wedge?Neuroradiology · 2010Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Intracranial stenting is increasingly used as an add-on to medical therapy despite the fact that the overall clinical benefit remains a matter of debate, since we lack results of randomized trials. Decision making on interventional treatment is made on the grounds of the anticipated risk of stroke with antiplatelet medication on one hand and on the experience with stent treatment based on data from case series and registries on the other hand. This review will summarize the current knowledge on both topics serving as the fundament of patient selection for intracranial stenting. A second objective is to highlight some specific problems that are encountered when treating patients interventionally. Procedure-related complication rates and rates of in stent stenoses are still too high to be confident that endovascular treatment is superior to medical therapy of symptomatic stenoses. Optimization of patient selection criteria, stent technology, and periprocedural management are necessary to become undoubtedly competitive with antiplatelet therapy. With the current stage of development, interventional treatment of intracranial stenoses should be confined to specialized centers with a high expertise in neurovascular procedures.
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.