ArticleHerz2013
[GeCAS registry. Sense and purpose of a carotid percutaneous transluminal angioplasty register in the era of obligatory quality assurance].
Article in Herz, 2013. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
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
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Clinical registries have become increasingly more important tools for scientists as well as for medical admission boards worldwide during recent years due to the ability to investigate the safety and efficacy of a therapeutic method in the general population under real world conditions. The clinical benefit of current registry data seems to be particularly high in a treatment method, such as carotid artery stenting (CAS) where safety and efficacy, especially in daily clinical practice, could not be totally clarified by several randomized clinical trials (RCT). For this reason the new multidisciplinary, multicenter and prospective German Carotid Artery Registry (GeCAS) was founded in January 2011 for continuing quality control in CAS in clinical practice in Germany. The GeCAS registry is a fusion of two large German CAS registries, the ALKK-CAS registry and the PROCAS registry, which were conducted by cardiologists, angiologists and radiologists and operated from 1996 until December 2010. However, a general duty of documentation (BQS) of every CAS procedure exists throughout Germany since January 2012. In contrast to optional documentation of CAS within the GeCAS registry, the nationwide and obligatory documentation is strictly focused on the main issues, such as indications and between hospital comparisons of outcome of patients. In the GeCAS registry data collection is generally more extensive and also includes a 30-day and 10-year follow-up. Compared to the BQS institute, benchmarking reports of GeCAS are more detailed and are made available to every participating hospital on a biannual basis. This generates an image of the current reality of CAS in Germany in addition to the nationwide obligatory documentation. Furthermore, data of the GeCAS registry is the basis for research work (e.g. publications and presentations), for generating new hypotheses and for technical development in CAS in Germany. Consequently, the existence of a multicenter and multidisciplinary CAS registry, such as the GeCAS registry, is considered necessary and medically useful.
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.