ReviewFrontiers in neurology2019
Intracranial Stenting: Is It Still an Option for Treatment of Patients With Intracranial Atherosclerosis?
Review in Frontiers in 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.
- Endovascular therapy versus medical treatment for symptomatic intracranial artery stenosis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023Pooled it
- Endovascular therapy versus medical treatment for symptomatic intracranial artery stenosis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020Pooled it
- Dramatically changing intracranial arteriopathy due to antiphospholipid syndrome: A case report.Radiology case reports · 2026Article
- Acute intracranial stenting in acute ischemic stroke with underlying atherosclerosis: A two-center retrospective study.Interventional neuroradiology : journal of peritherapeutic neuroradiology, surgical procedures and related neurosciences · 2026Article
- Long-term outcomes and quantitative radiologic analysis of extracranial-intracranial bypass for hemodynamically compromised chronic large artery occlusive disease.Scientific reports · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Intracranial atherosclerotic disease (ICAD) is considered a major cause of recurrent cerebrovascular events. ICAD continues to be a disease without an effective method of reducing the risk of recurrent stroke and death, even with aggressive, highly monitored medical treatment. We reviewed data from three randomized controlled studies that published data comparing intracranial stenting vs. medical treatment for symptomatic severe-ICAD. Ethnic, demographic, clinical, and procedural differences were observed among the data from these trials that might influence their results. Future research should aim at establishing refined selection criteria that can identify high-risk ICAD patients who may benefit from intracranial stenting.
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.