Less Biased Estimation of the Survival Benefit of Carotid Endarterectomy Using Real-World Data: Bridging the Gap Between Observational Studies and Randomized Clinical Trials.

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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

1. A retrospective cohort study on the provision and outcomes of pharmacological therapy after revascularisation for peripheral arterial occlusive disease: a study protocol.BMJ surgery, interventions, & health technologies · 2020
   Article
2. Effects of sedatives and opioids on trigger and cycling asynchronies throughout mechanical ventilation: an observational study in a large dataset from critically ill patients.Critical care (London, England) · 2019
   Observational

Corrections and comments

• Comment on
  Comparing Long-term Mortality After Carotid Endarterectomy vs Carotid Stenting Using a Novel Instrumental Variable Method for Risk Adjustment in Observational Time-to-Event Data.2018

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as