Evidence mapPaperPMID 33178804Full record

ReviewAnnals of translational medicine2020

The management of carotid restenosis: a comprehensive review.

Francesco Stilo, Nunzio Montelione, Rosalinda Calandrelli, Marisa Distefano, Francesco Spinelli, Vincenzo Di Lazzaro, Fabio Pilato

Open access · diamondAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Annals of translational medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 56 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Francesco StiloVascular Surgery Division, Campus Bio-Medico University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Nunzio MontelioneVascular Surgery Division, Campus Bio-Medico University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Rosalinda CalandrelliFondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli - IRCCS, Roma, UOC Radiologia e Neuroradiologia, Dipartimento di Diagnostica per Immagini, Radioterapia Oncologica ed Ematologia, Rome, Italy.
Marisa DistefanoUOC Neurologia e UTN, Ospedale Belcolle, Strada Sammartinese 01100 Viterbo, Viterbo, Italy.
Francesco SpinelliVascular Surgery Division, Campus Bio-Medico University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Vincenzo Di LazzaroNeurology, Neurophysiology, and Neurobiology Unit, Department of Medicine, Campus Bio-Medico University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Fabio PilatoFondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli - IRCCS, Roma, UOC Neurologia, Dipartimento di Scienze Dell'invecchiamento, Neurologiche, Ortopediche e della Testa-collo, Roma, Italy.
Università Campus Bio-Medico · ITAgostino Gemelli University Polyclinic · ITOspedale di Belcolle · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Carotid artery stenosis (CS) is a major medical problem affecting approximately 10% of the general population 80 years or older and causes stroke in approximately 10% of all ischemic events. In patients with symptomatic, moderate-to-severe CS, carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS), has been used to lower the risk of stroke. In primary CS, CEA was found to be superior to best medical therapy (BMT) according to 3 large randomized controlled trials (RCT). Following CEA and CAS, restenosis remains an unsolved problem involving a large number of patients as the current treatment recommendations are not as clear as those for primary stenosis. Several studies have evaluated the risk of restenosis, reporting an incidence ranging from 5% to 22% after CEA and an in-stent restenosis (ISR) rate ranging from 2.7% to 33%. Treatment and optimal management of this disease process, however, is a matter of ongoing debate, and, given the dearth of level 1evidence for the management of these conditions, the relevant guidelines lack clarity. Moreover, the incidence rates of stroke and complications in patients with carotid stenosis are derived from studies that did not use contemporary techniques and materials. Rapidly changing guidelines, updated techniques, and materials, and modern medical treatments make actual incidence rates barely comparable to previous ones. For these reasons, RCTs are critical for determining whether these patients should be treated with more aggressive treatments additional to BMT and identifying those patients indicated for surgical or endovascular treatments. This review summarizes the current evidence and controversies concerning the risks, causes, current treatment options, and prognoses in patients with restenosis after CEA or CAS.

Indexed as

angioplastycarotid artery restenosisendarterectomyIschemic strokestenting

Identifiers

PMID33178804
PMCPMC7607074
OpenAlexW3023249753

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.