SynthesisJournal of neurology2017
Endovascular vs. medical therapy in symptomatic vertebral artery stenosis: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of neurology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Percutaneous Transluminal Angioplasty for Atherosclerotic Stenosis of Vertebral Artery Origin.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Primary balloon angioplasty for chronic occlusion of intracranial internal carotid artery: A case report.Journal of interventional medicine · 2022Article
- Combined Transradial and Transfemoral Approach With Ostial Vertebral Balloon Protection for the Treatment of Patients With Subclavian Steal Syndrome.Frontiers in neurology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This meta-analysis aims to compare percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA) to medical treatment (MT) for symptomatic vertebral artery stenosis (SVAS) treatment. We searched PubMed, Springer, Google Scholar, Clinical Trials, Cochrane Central, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, and China Biological Medicine databases. All relevant comparative trials were included. All summary estimates were calculated by random-effect models. Ten comparative trials involving 672 patients were identified. Within 30-day follow-up, there was no significant difference between PTA plus MT and MT alone in vascular death, any stroke, posterior circulation TIA, posterior circulation infarction, and ischemic stroke (all P > 0.05). With a follow-up of more than 1 year, no significant difference was found between PTA plus MT and MT alone in all-cause death (3 vs. 7 %, P = 0.24), vascular death (4 vs. 7 %, P = 0.34), posterior circulation stroke (5 vs. 8 %, P = 0.48), posterior circulation ischemic events (8 vs. 25 %, P = 0.23), posterior circulation TIA (10 vs. 38 %, P = 0.11), posterior circulation infarction (6 vs. 12 %, P = 0.51), vertebral artery occlusion (6 vs. 12 %, P = 0.58), and in secondary long-term events, including any stroke, anterior circulation stroke, hemorrhagic stroke, and myocardial infarction (all P > 0.05), although PTA plus MT could largely reduce the vertebral artery stenosis rate [MD 63.05 %, 95 % CI (32.77-93.34 %), P < 0.01]. Hence, PTA plus MT may be not superior to MT alone for SVAS treatment. Larger randomized trials are needed to verify the optimum therapy for SVAS.
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.