Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24258207›Full record

ReviewCurrent cardiology reports2014

Asymptomatic carotid stenosis: immediate revascularization or watchful waiting?

Sridhar Venkatachalam

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current cardiology reports, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 29% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Eversion endarterectomy under full prasugrel treatment.SAGE open medical case reports · 2017
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Sridhar VenkatachalamDepartment of Hospital Medicine, Medicine Institute, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Avenue, M2-Annex, Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA, venkats@ccf.org.
Cleveland Clinic · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Based on several randomized clinical trials, carotid revascularization has been shown to reduce future stroke risk among individuals with severe asymptomatic carotid stenosis. However, a well-recognized problem with such prophylactic intervention is the risk of periprocedural stroke, death, or myocardial infarction. If actual stroke risk with asymptomatic carotid stenosis can be reduced significantly by aggressive medical management, carotid revascularization may yield marginal benefit or even cause harm especially in those with limited life expectancy. Based on recent observational data, it is becoming apparent that the stroke risk in this population has been declining with better medical management alone. This has prompted a few to avoid carotid revascularization for asymptomatic carotid stenosis altogether. Others feel such conclusions cannot be made with observational data alone. In the midst of this controversy, it is important that clinicians perform carotid revascularization on a case by case basis while ensuring optimal medical management in all patients. An algorithmic approach to decision making based on available evidence will enable clinicians to personalize patient management with efficiency.

Indexed as

Watchful WaitingAsymptomatic DiseasesCarotid StenosisDecision Support TechniquesEndarterectomy, CarotidEvidence-Based MedicineHumansRisk AssessmentStentsStroke

Identifiers

PMID24258207
OpenAlexW2080631383

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.