ReviewClinical neuroradiology2017
Carotid Stenting in Neuroradiology : A Short Journey from the Past to Current Debates.
Review in Clinical neuroradiology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prof. Dr. F. E. Zanella-A Training and Development Mentor in Neuroradiology.Clinical neuroradiology · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
After a period of stagnation due to negative results of randomized trials for patients with symptomatic stenosis, the relevance of carotid artery stenting (CAS) is increasing again. CAS has become an important and evidence-based part of interventional stroke treatment. Our ability to manage acute recanalization of carotid occlusions and other niche indications properly led some skeptical neurologists to trust in carotid intervention for elective cases as well. The evolution of CAS from initial euphoria to more realistic views under consideration of trial results and guidelines is reviewed. Quality assurance in Germany proves that CAS complication rates within the carotid endarterectomy (CEA) quality criteria are feasible even with higher proportions of high-risk patients. Recent trial results showed that long-term efficacy of CAS or CEA are not significantly different. Other than in symptomatic stenoses, acute complication rates of both means treatment does not differ in asymptomatic patients, where medical therapy becomes increasingly competitive. Technical issues of CAS like the cell design of stents or the usefulness of embolic protection are still under discussion. We will see whether CAS results will further improve over time. Standardized techniques, proper training, and patient selection are important for acute and elective cases.
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.