ArticleSeminars in interventional radiology2007
Carotid intervention 3: the evidence for cerebral protection.
Article in Seminars in interventional radiology, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Carotid stenting is a safe alternative option to conventional carotid endarterectomy in the treatment of carotid artery stenosis in patients considered poor candidates for surgery or who choose not to have open surgery. During the stenting procedure, however, distal embolization may occur with neurological sequelae. To reduce the incidence of this, several cerebral-protection devices (CPDs) have been developed. Different types of CPDs are now commercially available: distal occlusion balloons, distal filters, and proximal protection devices with or without reversal of flow. But complications can occur with their use and are usually associated with an inability to cross the lesion, failure to capture the emboli, vasospasm, and vessel wall injury. Because protection devices are currently the focus of interest by manufacturers and physicians, several trials are going on worldwide to analyze the characteristics of each of them and to evaluate their efficacy in reducing the rate of distal embolization.
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.