Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30127336›Full record

ArticleMedical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research2018

Comparison of Eversion Carotid Endarterectomy and Patch Carotid Endarterectomy: A Retrospective Study of 6 Years of Experience.

Guan Z Chen, Yuan Z Wu, Peng Y Diao, Li Ma, Sheng Yan, Xin Y Chen, Wei C Liu, Hong Y Zheng, Bao Liu, Jun Y Li

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Eversion Carotid Endarterectomy : A Short Review.Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society · 2020
    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

10 authors.

Guan Z ChenDepartment of Vascular Surgery, Beijing Hospital, National Center of Gerontology, Beijing, China (mainland).
Yuan Z WuDepartment of Vascular Surgery, Beijing Hospital, National Center of Gerontology, Beijing, China (mainland).
Peng Y DiaoDepartment of Vascular Surgery, Beijing Hospital, National Center of Gerontology, Beijing, China (mainland).
Li MaDepartment of Vascular Surgery, Beijing Hospital, National Center of Gerontology, Beijing, China (mainland).
Sheng YanDepartment of Vascular Surgery, Beijing Hospital, National Center of Gerontology, Beijing, China (mainland).
Xin Y ChenPeking Union Medical College, Chinese Academy of Medical Science, Beijing, China (mainland).
Wei C LiuPeking Union Medical College, Chinese Academy of Medical Science, Beijing, China (mainland).
Hong Y ZhengPeking Union Medical College, Chinese Academy of Medical Science, Beijing, China (mainland).
Bao LiuPeking Union Medical College, Chinese Academy of Medical Science, Beijing, China (mainland).
Jun Y LiDepartment of Vascular Surgery, Beijing Hospital, National Center of Gerontology, Beijing, China (mainland).

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND The aim of this study was to compare early and long-term results of eversion carotid endarterectomy (e-CEA) and patch carotid endarterectomy (p-CEA). MATERIAL AND METHODS In a retrospective study, we collected data on 441 patients who underwent CEA (e-CEA=211 vs. p-CEA=230) between October 2009 and October 2015 at our institute. Economic costs, postoperative hospital days, use of shunts and antibiotics, early (30-day) complications, long-term restenosis, and mortality rates were compared between groups during 4 to 76 months of follow-up. RESULTS Patients in the p-CEA group had a significantly higher percentage of antibiotic use (58.3% vs. 27%, respectively; P0.05). Long-term complication, including stroke or heart attack, recurrent stenosis rate, and mortality rate, showed no difference between the 2 groups (all P>0.05). Kaplan-Meier analysis shows that the recurrent stenosis-free and survival rates were not significantly different between the 2 groups (P=0.867, P=0.177, respectively). CONCLUSIONS The adverse event rates of perioperative and long-term follow-up showed no significant difference between the e-CEA and p-CEA groups. Both e-CEA and p-CEA are effective for carotid artery stenosis.

Indexed as

AgedCarotid StenosisCost-Benefit AnalysisEndarterectomy, CarotidFemaleHumansKaplan-Meier EstimateMaleMiddle AgedMyocardial InfarctionPostoperative ComplicationsRetrospective StudiesRisk FactorsStrokeTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID30127336
PMCPMC6113923

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.