Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32025593›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of surgery protocols2020

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.

M S Marsman, J Wetterslev, F Keus, D van Aalst, F G van Rooij, J M M Heyligers, F L Moll, A Kh Jahrome, P W H E Vriens, G G Koning

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of surgery protocols, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. 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.

M S MarsmanDepartment of Vascular Surgery, Rijnstate Hospital, Arnhem, the Netherlands.
J WetterslevCopenhagen Trial Unit, Center for Clinical Intervention Research, Rigshospitalet Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark.
F KeusDepartment of Critical Care, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, the Netherlands.
D van AalstDepartment of Anaesthesiology, Radboud University Medical Center Nijmegen, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
F G van RooijDepartment of Neurology, Medical Center Leeuwarden, Leeuwarden, the Netherlands.
J M M HeyligersDepartment of Vascular Surgery, Elisabeth-TweeSteden Hospital, Tilburg, the Netherlands.
F L MollDepartment of Vascular Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
A Kh JahromeDepartment of Vascular Surgery, Medical Center Leeuwarden, Leeuwarden, the Netherlands.
P W H E VriensDepartment of Vascular Surgery, Elisabeth-TweeSteden Hospital, Tilburg, the Netherlands.
G G KoningDepartment of Vascular Surgery, Ikazia Hospital, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionTraditional carotid endarterectomy is considered to be the standard technique for prevention of a new stroke in patients with a symptomatic carotid stenosis. Use of plexus anesthesia or general anesthesia in traditional carotid endarterectomy is, to date, not unequivocally proven to be superior to one other. A systematic review is needed for evaluation of benefits and harms to determine which technique, plexus anesthesia or general anesthesia is more effective for traditional carotid endarterectomy in patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis. METHODS AND OUTCOMES: The review will be conducted according to this protocol following the recommendations of the 'Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews' and reported according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. Randomized Clinical Trials comparing plexus anesthesia versus general anesthesia in traditional carotid endarterectomy will be included. Primary outcomes will be postoperative death and/ or stroke (<30 days) and serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes will be non-serious adverse events.We will primarily base our conclusions on meta-analyses of trials with overall low risk of bias. We will use Trial Sequential Analysis to assist the evaluation of imprecision in Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation. 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 Trial Sequential Analysis adjusted confidence interval precision of the estimate achieved in all trials as the result of our meta-analyses. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The proposed systematic review will collect and analyze secondary data from already performed studies therefore 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.

Identifiers

PMID32025593
PMCPMC6997585

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.