ArticleFrontiers in neurology2025
Comparison of safety and efficacy of different endovascular treatments for symptomatic intracranial atherosclerotic stenosis: results from a single center.
Article in Frontiers in neurology, 2025. 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.
- Survival, Recorded Disability, and Neurorehabilitation After Advanced Endovascular Stroke Care in Kazakhstan: A Retrospective Cohort Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Endovascular treatment and clinical outcomes in minor ischemic stroke due to large-vessel disease: a retrospective study.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2026Article
- Elucidating the benefit of drug-eluting stent for symptomatic intracranial atherosclerotic stenosis: Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Surgical neurology international · 2025Review
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
Background: Symptomatic intracranial atherosclerotic stenosis (sICAS) is one of the common causes of ischemic stroke. However, the treatment of sICAS has remained a challenge in the past with unfavorable findings. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of different endovascular treatment methods for sICAS. Methods: The study involved 154 patients with sICAS who received endovascular treatment at Qingdao University Hospital between January 2021 and October 2023. Based on the characteristics of the lesions, three different types of treatments were performed: bare metal stent group (BMS group), drug-coated balloon group (DCB group), and drug-eluting stent group (DES group). The primary endpoints included the incidence of in-stent restenosis (ISR) in the 6-month, periprocedural complications, the rate of stroke recurrence in the area of the stented artery during the follow-up period, and modified Rankin score (mRS) at discharge, at 1-month, at 3-month, at 6-month of patients after stenting. Results: The incidence of perioperative complications did not differ significantly between groups (11.3% in the BMS group, 8.0% in the DCB group, and 6.1% in the DES group, Conclusion: Adverse events and success rates following stent implantation are comparable across therapy groups in individuals with sICAS. When compared to BMS, DES, and DCB reduce the risk of ISR, with the advantages of the DCB appearing to be greater for some high-risk patients with ICAS.
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.