ArticleBMC neurology2019
Can risk modelling improve treatment decisions in asymptomatic carotid stenosis?
Article in BMC neurology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- External Validation of Risk Prediction Models to Improve Selection of Patients for Carotid Endarterectomy.Stroke · 2022Pooled it
- Detection of asymptomatic carotid stenosis in patients with lower-extremity arterial disease: development and external validations of a risk score.The British journal of surgery · 2021Pooled it
- Prediction of Severe Baseline Asymptomatic Carotid Stenosis and Subsequent Risk of Stroke and Cardiovascular Disease.Stroke · 2024Article
- Development and Internal Validation of a Risk Score to Detect Asymptomatic Carotid Stenosis.European journal of vascular and endovascular surgery : the official journal of the European Society for Vascular Surgery · 2021Article
- Aortic Valve Sclerosis as an Important Predictor of Long-Term Mortality in Patients With Carotid Atheromatous Plaque Requiring Carotid Endarterectomy.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCarotid endarterectomy (CEA) is routinely performed for asymptomatic carotid stenosis, yet its average net benefit is small. Risk stratification may identify high risk patients that would clearly benefit from treatment.
methodsRetrospective cohort study using data from the Asymptomatic Carotid Atherosclerosis Study (ACAS). Risk factors for poor outcomes were included in backward and forward selection procedures to develop baseline risk models estimating the risk of non-perioperative ipsilateral stroke/TIA. Baseline risk was estimated for all ACAS participants and externally validated using data from the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study. Baseline risk was then included in a treatment risk model that explored the interaction of baseline risk and treatment status (CEA vs. medical management) on the patient-centered outcome of any stroke or death, including peri-operative events.
resultsThree baseline risk factors (BMI, creatinine and degree of contralateral stenosis) were selected into our baseline risk model (c-statistic 0.59 [95% CI 0.54-0.65]). The model stratified absolute risk between the lowest and highest risk quintiles (5.1% vs. 12.5%). External validation in ARIC found similar predictiveness (c-statistic 0.58 [0.49-0.67]), but poor calibration across the risk spectrum. In the treatment risk model, CEA was superior to medical management across the spectrum of baseline risk and the magnitude of the treatment effect varied widely between the lowest and highest absolute risk quintiles (3.2% vs. 10.7%).
conclusionEven modestly predictive risk stratification tools have the potential to meaningfully influence clinical decision making in asymptomatic carotid disease. However, our ACAS model requires target population recalibration prior to clinical application.
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.