ArticleBMJ open2019
Carotid endarterectomy with primary closure versus patch angioplasty in patients with symptomatic and significant stenosis: protocol for a systematic review with meta-analyses and trial sequential analysis of randomised clinical trials.
Article in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Carotid endarterectomy with patch angioplasty versus primary closure in patients with symptomatic and significant stenosis: a systematic review with meta-analyses and trial sequential analysis of randomized clinical trials.Systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- Eversion technique versus traditional carotid endarterectomy with patch angioplasty: a systematic review with meta-analyses and trial sequential analysis.Surgery open science · 2023Review
- Five-year outcome of non-shunting and primary closure technique during carotid endarterectomy: a longitudinal cohort study.The Journal of international medical research · 2022Article
- Plexus anesthesia versus general anesthesia for carotid endarterectomy: A systematic review with meta-analyses.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2021Review
- Article
- Plexus anesthesia versus general anesthesia in patients for carotid endarterectomy with patch angioplasty: Protocol for a systematic review with meta-analyses and Trial Sequential Analysis of randomized clinical trials.International journal of surgery protocols · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionUse of patch angioplasty in carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is suggested to reduce the risk of restenosis and recurrent ipsilateral stroke. The objective is to conduct a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis as well as Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) assessments comparing the benefits and harms of CEA with primary closure of the arterial wall versus CEA with patch angioplasty in patients with a symptomatic and significant carotid stenosis. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The review shall be conducted according to this published protocol following the recommendations of the 'Cochrane' and reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. Randomised clinical trials comparing CEA with primary closure of the arterial wall versus CEA with patch angioplasty (regardless of used patch materials) in human adults with a symptomatic and significant carotid stenosis will be included. Primary outcomes are all-cause mortality at maximal follow-up, health-related quality of life and serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes are symptomatic or asymptomatic arterial occlusion or restenosis, and non-serious adverse events. We will primarily base our conclusions on meta-analyses of trials with overall low risk of bias. However, if pooled point estimates of all trials are similar to pooled point estimates of trials with overall low risk of bias and there is lack of a statistical significant interaction between estimates from trials with overall high risk of bias and trials with overall low risk of bias we will consider the precision achieved in all trials as the result of our meta-analyses. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The proposed systematic review will collect and analyse secondary data from published studies therefor ethical approval is not required. The results of the systematic review will be disseminated by publication in a peer-review journal and submitted for presentation at relevant conferences. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42014013416.
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.