SynthesisPloS one2021
Comparison the effects of carotid endarterectomy with carotid artery stenting for contralateral carotid occlusion.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Is a Carotid Doppler Scan Useful for Managing Patients with Suspected Ocular Ischemic Syndrome?Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2024Review
- Transient ischemic attack and minor stroke as "surgeons affairs": a narrative review.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere have been inconsistent results regarding the use of carotid artery endarterectomy (CEA) versus carotid artery stenting (CAS) for contralateral carotid occlusion (CCO). This study aimed to determine the optimal revascularization technique for patients with CCO.
methodsWe systematically searched the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases to identify eligible studies published from inception to January 2, 2021. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to calculate pooled effect estimates using a random-effects model. Sensitivity, subgroup, and publication bias analyses were also performed.
resultsSix studies involving 6,953 patients were selected for inclusion in this meta-analysis. Our results showed that while CEA was not associated with an increased risk of stroke compared to CAS (OR: 1.07; 95% CI: 0.75-1.51; P = 0.713), CEA was associated with a reduced risk of death compared to CAS (OR: 0.45; 95% CI: 0.29-0.70; P < 0.001). Furthermore, there were no significant differences between CEA and CAS for the risks of myocardial infarction (OR: 1.38; 95% CI: 0.73-2.62; P = 0.319) or major adverse cardiovascular events (OR: 1.03; 95% CI: 0.56-1.88; P = 0.926). Finally, the risk of myocardial infarction for CEA versus CAS was affected by disease status, while the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events was affected by the proportions of patients with male gender, coronary artery disease, and current or prior smoking.
conclusionThis study found that CEA and CAS resulted in similar outcomes for patients with CCO, while the risk of death was reduced in patients treated with CEA. Further high-level evidence should be collected to verify the results of this study.
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.