Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25609266›Full record

ReviewCurrent atherosclerosis reports2015

Carotid stenosis: from diagnosis to management, where do we stand?

Reshma Gokaldas, Maheep Singh, Sonia Lal, Ricardo J Benenstein, Ramandeep Sahni

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current atherosclerosis reports, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Journal of the American Heart Association · 2022
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Carotid artery stenosis screening: where are we now?The British journal of radiology · 2018
    Review
  15. Review
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

5 authors.

Reshma GokaldasWestchester Medical Center, New York Medical College, 100 Woods Rd, Valhalla, NY, 10595, USA, rgokaldas@gmail.com.
Maheep Singh
Sonia Lal
Ricardo J Benenstein
Ramandeep Sahni

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Carotid atherosclerosis is implicated in 20-30 % of strokes. However, the annual risk of stroke in patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis is less than 5 %. Symptomatic carotid stenosis poses a greater risk for recurrent stroke with estimates as high as 15 % per year. This paper aims to raise awareness of populations at risk for carotid stenosis, the role of carotid screening and the sensitivity and specificity of various diagnostic modalities. The results of previous trials that support current guidelines for management of symptomatic and asymptomatic carotid stenosis will also be reviewed.

Indexed as

Angioplasty, BalloonCarotid Artery DiseasesCarotid StenosisEndarterectomy, CarotidHumansHydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase InhibitorsMass ScreeningRisk AssessmentStentsStrokeHydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors

Identifiers

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.