ArticleBMJ open2020
Eversion technique versus conventional endarterectomy with patch angioplasty in carotid surgery: protocol for a systematic review with meta-analyses and trial sequential analysis of randomised clinical trials.
Article in BMJ open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Eversion technique versus traditional carotid endarterectomy with patch angioplasty: a systematic review with meta-analyses and trial sequential analysis.Surgery open science · 2023Review
- Does the eversion technique have a lower early postoperative stroke rate than the conventional technique in carotid endarterectomy?Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2022Article
- Article
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 7 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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 patch angioplasty to restore the arterial wall after longitudinal endarterectomy is, to date, not unequivocally proven to be superior to eversion technique. A systematic review is needed for evaluation of benefits and harms of the eversion technique versus the traditional endarterectomy with patch angioplasty 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. Randomised clinical trials comparing eversion technique versus endarterectomy with patch angioplasty in patients with a symptomatic stenosis of the internal carotid artery will be included. Primary outcomes are all-cause mortality rate, health-related quality of life and serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes are 30-day stroke and mortality rate, symptomatic arterial restenosis or occlusion and non-serious adverse events. The databases Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed/MEDLINE and EMBASE will be searched (November 2019). 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 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 analyse data from published studies, therefore, ethical approval is not required. The results of the review will be disseminated by publication in a peer-review journal and submitted for presentation at conferences. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019119361.
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.