ArticleNeuroradiology2010
Diagnostic workup in carotid stenosis-a neurologist's perspective.
Article in Neuroradiology, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Carotid artery stenosis is associated with the risk of stroke, myocardial infarction, and vascular death. In selected patients, revascularization of carotid narrowing by endarterectomy may reduce the risk of stroke distal to the stenosis. Carotid artery stenting has evolved as a potential alternative to endarterectomy. Four randomized clinical trials comparing safety and efficacy of endarterectomy versus stenting of symptomatic carotid stenosis have been published in recent years, but there remains some uncertainty about the implications of these trials for clinical routine. Both carotid stenting and endarterectomy are based on different treatment strategies which may result in different specific risk factors associated with each procedure. Hence, the procedural risk of either modality varies not only with the skills of the surgeon or the interventionalist but may depend on patient characteristics. It appears that the most important question is not whether one revascularization modality is superior but for which patient one modality is better than the other. A comprehensive diagnostic workup of patients with carotid stenosis based on a broad panel of covariates that affect the risk of vascular events may improve selection of patients for carotid revascularization and may help to decide for whom one revascularization modality is likely to be better than the other.
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.