ArticlePakistan journal of medical sciences2013
Effects of carotid endarterectomy and carotid artery stenting on high-risk carotid stenosis patients.
Article in Pakistan journal of medical sciences, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Carotid artery stenting versus endarterectomy for treatment of carotid artery stenosis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020Pooled it
- Short- and Mid-Term Outcomes of Stenting in Patients with Isolated Distal Internal Carotid Artery Stenosis or Post-Surgical Restenosis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- European Stroke Organisation guideline on endarterectomy and stenting for carotid artery stenosis.European stroke journal · 2021Article
- Endarterectomy versus stenting for stroke prevention.Stroke and vascular neurology · 2018Review
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
objectiveTo analyze the clinical effects and safety of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS) in the treatment of high-risk carotid stenosis patients.
methodsTotal 63 patients who underwent CEA or CAS in our hospitals from January 2007 to December 2012 were selected in this study, and were randomly divided into an observation group and a control group. The patients in the observation group were subjected to CAS and those in the control group were subjected to CEA to compare the primary and secondary endpoints of the treatment.
resultsThe arrival rates of the primary and secondary endpoints were 7.14% and 10.71% respectively in the observation group, while those were 11.43% and 11.43% respectively in the control group. There were no significant differences in the arrival rates of primary and secondary endpoints between the two groups (P>0.05).
conclusionThe efficacies and safety of CAS and CEA are similar in treating high-risk carotid stenosis patients.
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.