ReviewNature reviews. Neurology2010
Secondary stroke prevention.
Review in Nature reviews. Neurology, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 35 citations in OpenAlex.
- Study on the correlation between total cerebral small vessel disease score and lacunar infarction.Frontiers in neurology · 2025Article
- Pragmatic solutions to reduce the global burden of stroke: a World Stroke Organization-Lancet Neurology Commission.The Lancet. Neurology · 2023Review
- Baseline D-Dimer Levels as a Risk Assessment Biomarker for Recurrent Stroke in Patients with Combined Atrial Fibrillation and Atherosclerosis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2019Article
- Genetic variants in CYP4F2 were significantly correlated with susceptibility to ischemic stroke.BMC medical genetics · 2019Article
- Controlling resistant hypertension.Stroke and vascular neurology · 2018Review
- Blood pressure targets in type 2 diabetes. Evidence against or in favour of an aggressive approach.Diabetologia · 2018Review
- Effects of preoperative statin use on perioperative outcomes of carotid endarterectomy.Brain and behavior · 2017Article
- Intensive risk factor control in stroke prevention.F1000prime reports · 2013Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Secondary stroke prevention can reduce the risk of recurrent stroke by approximately 90%. To achieve such a reduction, early implementation of preventative measures and administration of therapy appropriate to the underlying cause of the presenting transient ischemic attack or stroke are crucial. Smoking cessation and a Cretan Mediterranean diet are each more effective than any single medication in reducing the risk of recurrent stroke. Control of resistant hypertension can markedly reduce the risk of intracerebral hemorrhage and lacunar infarction but might require therapy that is specific to the underlying cause. New antiplatelet agents have been developed or are in development that might avoid the issues of resistance and drug interactions that prevail with established agents of this type. Furthermore, new anticoagulants in development offer promise of replacing warfarin, and devices to occlude the atrial appendage are on the horizon for patients with atrial fibrillation. Carotid endarterectomy is appropriate for severe symptomatic carotid stenosis, while stenting might be appropriate for symptomatic stenosis where the surgical risk is high. Most patients with asymptomatic stenosis, however, should be treated with medical therapy, unless indicators of high stroke risk are present. In this narrative Review, I discuss recent advances in secondary stroke prevention.
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.