SynthesisClinical interventions in aging2015
Efficacy and safety of stenting for elderly patients with severe and symptomatic carotid artery stenosis: a critical meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in Clinical interventions in aging, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 3 of them syntheses 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, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- An umbrella review and second-order meta-analysis of CAS versus CEA for carotid stenosis.Frontiers in neurology · 2026Pooled it
- [Important recommendations of the German-Austrian S3 guidelines on management of extracranial carotid artery stenosis].Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen · 2022Guideline
- Diagnosis, Treatment and Follow-up in Extracranial Carotid Stenosis.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2020Pooled it
- Immediate and late outcomes of stenting for severe extracranial internal carotid artery stenosis in octogenarian patients.Brain and behavior · 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
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo investigate both short-term and long-term therapeutic efficacy and safety of carotid artery stenting (CAS) and carotid artery endarterectomy (CEA) for elderly patients with severe and symptomatic carotid artery stenosis.
methodsPubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Clinical Trials Register Centers, and Google Scholar were comprehensively searched. After identifying relevant randomized controlled trials, methodological quality was assessed by using Cochrane tools of bias assessment. Meta-analysis was performed by RevMan software, and subgroup analyses according to different follow-up periods were also conducted.
resultsSixteen articles of nine randomized controlled trials containing 6,984 patients were included. Compared with CEA, CAS was associated with high risks of stroke during periprocedural 30 days (risk ratio [RR]=1.47, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.15-1.88), 48 months (RR=1.37, 95% CI: 1.11-1.70), and >48 months (RR=1.76, 95% CI: 1.34-2.31). There was no significant difference in the aspects of death, disabling stroke, or death at any time between the groups. For other periprocedural complications, CAS decreased the risk of myocardial infarction (RR=0.44, 95% CI: 0.26-0.75), cranial nerve palsy (RR=0.09, 95% CI: 0.04-0.22) and hematoma (RR=0.31, 95% CI: 0.14-0.68) compared with CEA, while it increased the risk of bradycardia or hypotension (RR=8.45, 95% CI 2.91-24.58).
conclusionCompared with CEA, CAS reduced hematoma, periprocedural myocardial infarction, and cranial nerve palsy, while it was associated with higher risks of both short-term and long-term nondisabling stroke. And they seemed to be equivalent in other outcome measures. As regards to its minimal invasion, it should be applied only in specific 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.