ArticleFrontiers in neurology2025
Extracranial vertebral artery stenosis patients that may benefit from stent placement: post-hoc analysis from randomized controlled trials.
Article in Frontiers in neurology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Stent placement is a treatment option intended to reduce the risk of ischemic events in patients with extracranial vertebral artery stenosis (EVAS). However, the patient subgroups that can potentially benefit from stent placement are not well defined. Methods: We performed an exploratory pooled analysis of patients with EVAS (≥50% in severity) enrolled within 30 days of the qualifying event of ischemic stroke from two randomized controlled trials evaluating stent placement and medical treatment alone. We compared the risk of vertebrobasilar arterial distribution ischemic stroke and/or death (and other endpoints) post-randomization between the two groups using adjusted Cox proportional hazards models and estimated the event-free survival during 2-year post-randomization follow-up using Kaplan-Meier curves. Results: A total of 94 patients (50 randomized to stent placement and 44 assigned to best medical treatment only) were included in the analysis. After adjusting for age and use of antihypertensive medication at baseline, the risks of vertebrobasilar arterial distribution ischemic stroke and/or death (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.4, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.1-1.1, Conclusion: Patients with EVAS can potentially benefit from stent placement within 30 days following an ischemic stroke and should be further evaluated in clinical trials.
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.