ArticleScientific reports2022
The clinical application of a scoring protocol to select endarterectomy or stenting for carotid artery stenosis.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Correlation between Carotid Stenosis Degree and Blood Pressure Variability in Patients with Carotid Stenosis.Computational and mathematical methods in medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Previously we described the protocol-based decision for choosing the proper surgical treatment option for carotid stenosis. The objective of this study is to describe our experiences of using this scoring protocol in the selection of endarterectomy or stenting for carotid stenosis. Between October 2014 and March 2018, the scoring protocol was applied to a total of 105 consecutive patients. Eighty (76.2%) patients had symptomatic stenosis ≥ 50%, and 25 (23.8%) patients had asymptomatic stenosis ≥ 80%. We also speculated about how effectively the protocol worked in the real clinical setting. Stenting was performed in 73 patients and endarterectomy in 32 patients. Overall, 98 (93.3%) patients were treated according to the protocol, while the protocol was violated in seven (6.7%) patients. Sixty-one (58.1%) patients received treatments that were decided by the protocol. There were 37 (35.2%) patients who had the same score for both treatment options. Among these patients, 28 patients underwent stenting and nine patients underwent endarterectomy. In the stenting cases, 90.4% of the patients followed the protocol and violations occurred in 9.6%. In the endarterectomy cases, all of the patients followed the protocol. Overall, one patient had a procedure-related complication without morbidity. During the 12-month follow-ups, there were no restenoses or major strokes. Minor strokes were diagnosed in three (2.8%) patients. In patients with carotid artery stenosis, stenting and endarterectomy should be considered simultaneously together, not against each other. Our scoring protocol can be used to weigh these options and applied in clinical practice.
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.