ReviewJournal of vascular surgery2024
Decision aids for patients with carotid stenosis.
Review in Journal of vascular surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Three-year risk of stroke after transcarotid artery revascularization versus carotid endarterectomy among Medicare beneficiaries.Journal of vascular surgery · 2025Article
- Textbook outcomes as a novel patient-centric metric to inform carotid revascularization.Journal of vascular surgery · 2025Article
- Effectiveness of Transcarotid vs Transfemoral Carotid Stenting for Stroke Prevention.JAMA network open · 2025Article
- Patient decision-making in the era of transcarotid artery revascularization.Journal of vascular surgery · 2024Article
- Appropriateness of care: Asymptomatic carotid stenosis including transcarotid artery revascularization.Seminars in vascular surgery · 2024Review
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.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundShared decision-making tools have been underused by clinicians in real-world practice. Changes to the National Coverage Determination by Medicare for carotid stenting greatly expand the coverage for patients, but simultaneously require a shared decision-making interaction that involves the use of a validated tool. Accordingly, our objective was to evaluate the currently available decision aids for carotid stenosis.
methodsWe conducted a review of the literature for published work on decision aids for the treatment of carotid disease.
resultsFour publications met inclusion criteria. We found the format of the decision aid impacted patient comprehension and decision making, although patient characteristics also played a role in the therapeutic decisions made. Notably, none of the available decision aids included the widely adopted transcarotid artery revascularization as an option.
conclusionsFurther work is needed in the development of a widespread validated decision aid instrument for patients with carotid stenosis.
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.