ArticleKorean circulation journal2020
Role of Carotid Artery Stenting in Prevention of Stroke for Asymptomatic Carotid Stenosis: Bayesian Cross-Design and Network Meta-Analyses.
Article in Korean circulation journal, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Review of Methods for Research Synthesis.Statistics in medicine · 2025Article
- Reclassification of Cardiovascular Risk Based on the Presence of Carotid Plaque Regarding Statin Eligibility in Low to Moderate Risk Patients.Korean circulation journal · 2022Article
- Reassembling Evidence for Treatment in Asymptomatic Carotid Artery Stenosis.Korean circulation journal · 2020Article
- Dysregulation Serum miR-19a-3p is a Diagnostic Biomarker for Asymptomatic Carotid Artery Stenosis and a Promising Predictor of Cerebral Ischemia Events.Clinical and applied thrombosis/hemostasis : official journal of the International Academy of Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/HemostasisArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesThere is insufficient evidence regarding the optimal treatment for asymptomatic carotid stenosis.
methodsBayesian cross-design and network meta-analyses were performed to compare the safety and efficacy among carotid artery stenting (CAS), carotid endarterectomy (CEA), and medical treatment (MT). We identified 18 studies (4 randomized controlled trials [RCTs] and 14 nonrandomized, comparative studies [NRCSs]) comparing CAS with CEA, and 4 RCTs comparing CEA with MT from MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases.
resultsThe risk for periprocedural stroke tended to increase in CAS, compared to CEA (odds ratio [OR], 1.86; 95% credible interval [CrI], 0.62-4.54). However, estimates for periprocedural myocardial infarction (MI) were quite heterogeneous in RCTs and NRCSs. Despite a trend of decreased risk with CAS in RCTs (OR, 0.70; 95% CrI, 0.27-1.24), the risk was similar in NRCSs (OR, 1.02; 95% CrI, 0.87-1.18). In indirect comparisons of MT and CAS, MT showed a tendency to have a higher risk for the composite of periprocedural death, stroke, MI, or nonperiprocedural ipsilateral stroke (OR, 1.30; 95% CrI, 0.74-2.73). Analyses of study characteristics showed that CEA-versus-MT studies took place about 10-year earlier than CEA-versus-CAS studies.
conclusionsA similar risk for periprocedural MI between CEA and CAS in NRCSs suggested that concerns about periprocedural MI accompanied by CEA might not matter in real-world practice when preoperative evaluation and management are working. Maybe the benefits of CAS over MT have been overestimated considering advances in medical therapy within10-year gap between CEA-versus-MT and CEA-versus-CAS studies.
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.