Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29637445›Full record

ReviewCurrent hypertension reports2018

Atherosclerotic Renal Artery Stenosis: Should we Intervene Earlier?

Peter W de Leeuw, Cor T Postma, Wilko Spiering, Abraham A Kroon

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current hypertension reports, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Peter W de LeeuwDepartment of Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands. p.deleeuw@maastrichtuniversity.nl.
Cor T PostmaDepartment of Medicine, University Medical Center Nijmegen St Radboud, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Wilko SpieringDepartment of Vascular Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Abraham A KroonDepartment of Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Maastricht University · NLRadboud University Nijmegen · NLUtrecht University · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewRandomized trials have failed to show clinical benefit in patients with atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis who were treated with angioplasty with or without stenting. However, these studies were done in patients with a high-grade stenosis. This paper examines whether there are arguments to consider patients with low-grade stenosis for angioplasty. RECENT

findingsPatients with low-grade (< 50%) atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis have an excess risk for cardiovascular and renal complications. This could be related to inflammatory factors being generated by the stenotic kidney. Moreover, even a kidney with low-grade stenosis clears less or produces more of the natural nitric oxide inhibitor ADMA. Patients with low-grade atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis have an increased risk for a variety of complications. In addition, the abnormality is progressive. There is a case for setting up a prospective trial to examine whether angioplasty confers benefit in patients with low-grade renal artery stenosis.

Indexed as

AtherosclerosisDisease ProgressionHumansHypertension, RenovascularRenal ArteryRenal Artery ObstructionAtherosclerosisCardiovascular complicationsInterventionRenal artery stenosisRenal functionRenovascular hypertension

Identifiers

PMID29637445
PMCPMC5893688
OpenAlexW2796528906

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.