Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30012816›Full record

ReviewStroke2018

Prediction Models for Clinical Outcome After a Carotid Revascularization Procedure.

Eline J Volkers, Ale Algra, L Jaap Kappelle, Olav Jansen, George Howard, Jeroen Hendrikse, Alison Halliday, John Gregson, Gustav Fraedrich, Hans-Henning Eckstein and 10 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Stroke, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

20 authors at 14 institutions in 7 countries.

Eline J VolkersFrom the Department of Neurology and Neurosurgery, Brain Center Rudolf Magnus (E.J.V., A.A., L.J.K.).
Ale AlgraFrom the Department of Neurology and Neurosurgery, Brain Center Rudolf Magnus (E.J.V., A.A., L.J.K.).
L Jaap KappelleFrom the Department of Neurology and Neurosurgery, Brain Center Rudolf Magnus (E.J.V., A.A., L.J.K.).
Olav JansenClinic for Radiology and Neuroradiology, UKSH Campus Kiel, Germany (O.J.).
George HowardDepartment of Biostatistics, UAB School of Public Health, Birmingham, AL (G.H.).
Jeroen HendrikseDepartment of Radiology (J.H.), University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, The Netherlands.
Alison HallidayNuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, United Kingdom (A.H.).
John GregsonLondon School for Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, United Kingdom (J.G.).
Gustav FraedrichDepartment of Vascular Surgery, Medical University of Innsbruck, Austria (G.F.).
Hans-Henning EcksteinDepartment of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery/Vascular Center, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technical University Munich, Germany (H.-H.E.).
David CalvetDepartment of Neurology, Hôpital Sainte-Anne, Université Paris-Descartes, DHU Neurovasc Sorbonne Paris Cité, INSERM U894, France (D.C., J.-L.M.).
Richard BulbuliaMRC Population Health Research Unit, Clinical Trial Service Unit and Epidemiological Studies Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, United Kingdom (R.B.).
Martin M BrownDepartment of Brain Repair and Rehabilitation, UCL Institute of Neurology, University College London, United Kingdom (M.M.B., L.H.B.).
Jean-Pierre BecqueminIVPE, Hopital Privé Paul D'Egine, Champigny, France (J.-P.B.).
Peter A RinglebDepartment of Neurology, University of Heidelberg Medical School, Germany (P.A.R.).
Jean-Louis MasDepartment of Neurology, Hôpital Sainte-Anne, Université Paris-Descartes, DHU Neurovasc Sorbonne Paris Cité, INSERM U894, France (D.C., J.-L.M.).
Leo H BonatiDepartment of Brain Repair and Rehabilitation, UCL Institute of Neurology, University College London, United Kingdom (M.M.B., L.H.B.).
Thomas G BrottDepartment of Neurology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL (T.G.B.).
Jacoba P GrevingJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care (E.J.V., A.A., J.P.G.).
Carotid Stenosis Trialists’ Collaboration
Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences · USUniversity College London · GBHôpital Privé Jacques Cartier · FRInserm · FRJohn Radcliffe Hospital · GBKlinikum rechts der Isar · DELondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GBMayo Clinic in Florida · USSorbonne Paris Cité · FRUniversität Innsbruck · ATUniversity Hospital Heidelberg · DEUniversity Hospital Schleswig-Holstein · DEUniversity of Oxford · GBUtrecht University · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and Purpose- Prediction models may help physicians to stratify patients with high and low risk for periprocedural complications or long-term stroke risk after carotid artery stenting or carotid endarterectomy. We aimed to evaluate external performance of previously published prediction models for short- and long-term outcome after carotid revascularization in patients with symptomatic carotid artery stenosis. Methods- From a literature review, we selected all prediction models that used only readily available patient characteristics known before procedure initiation. Follow-up data from 2184 carotid artery stenting and 2261 carotid endarterectomy patients from 4 randomized trials (EVA-3S [Endarterectomy Versus Angioplasty in Patients With Symptomatic Severe Carotid Stenosis], SPACE [Stent-Protected Angioplasty Versus Carotid Endarterectomy], ICSS [International Carotid Stenting Study], and CREST [Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy Versus Stenting Trial]) were used to validate 23 short-term outcome models to estimate stroke or death risk ≤30 days after the procedure and the original outcome measure for which the model was developed. Additionally, we validated 7 long-term outcome models for the original outcome measure. Predictive performance of the models was assessed with C statistics and calibration plots. Results- Stroke or death ≤30 days after the procedure occurred in 158 (7.2%) patients after carotid artery stenting and in 84 (3.7%) patients after carotid endarterectomy. Most models for short-term outcome after carotid artery stenting (n=4) or carotid endarterectomy (n=19) had poor discriminative performance (C statistics ranging from 0.49-0.64) and poor calibration with small absolute risk differences between the lowest and highest risk groups and overestimation of risk in the highest risk groups. Long-term outcome models (n=7) had a slightly better performance with C statistics ranging from 0.59 to 0.67 and reasonable calibration. Conclusions- Current models did not reliably predict outcome after carotid revascularization in a trial population of patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis. In particular, prediction of short-term outcome seemed to be difficult. Further external validation of existing prediction models or development of new prediction models is needed before such models can be used to support treatment decisions in individual patients.

Indexed as

Models, BiologicalCarotid StenosisEndarterectomy, CarotidHumansPredictive Value of TestsTreatment Outcomeangioplastycalibrationcarotid stenosisinfarctionmyocardialthromboembolism

Identifiers

PMID30012816
PMCPMC6092096
OpenAlexW2883634074

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.