ReviewNeurologia medico-chirurgica2015
Evidence for management of carotid artery stenosis.
Review in Neurologia medico-chirurgica, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Carotid Artery Stenting: Evolution, Evidence, and Contemporary Practice in the Era of Intensive Medical Therapy.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Vessel wall MR imaging in neuroradiology.La Radiologia medica · 2022Review
- MicroRNA-375-3p is implicated in carotid artery stenosis by promoting the cell proliferation and migration of vascular smooth muscle cells.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2021Article
- Early Outcomes of Carotid Revascularization in Retrospective Case Series.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Review
- Diagnostic value of miR-92a in asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis patients and its ability to predict cerebrovascular events.Diagnostic pathology · 2020Article
- Carotid Artery Endarterectomy Effect on Choroidal Thickness: One-Year Follow-Up.Journal of ophthalmology · 2018Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In this review, we presented the evidence concerning carotid artery stenosis treatment in symptomatic stenosis and asymptomatic stenosis separately, and discussed the future challenges. The validity of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) to treat moderate or greater degree of symptomatic carotid artery stenosis appears to be established. Due to the additional option of carotid artery stenting (CAS), it is necessary to comprehensively determine whether CEA or CAS is more appropriate for each individual patient. Moreover, since there are rapid advancements in devices for CAS and improvements in treatment outcomes, continual learning of the latest treatment method is essential. For asymptomatic stenosis, due to improvements in the outcomes with best medical treatment (BMT), it is essential to re-evaluate the use of invasive CEA/CAS. Continual verification of the latest randomized clinical trial that compares CEA, CAS, and BMT, and establishment of a diagnostic method that can accurately extract the group of patients who have the highest future risk of developing ischemia, are desired.
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.