ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2021
Early Outcomes of Carotid Revascularization in Retrospective Case Series.
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- An umbrella review and second-order meta-analysis of CAS versus CEA for carotid stenosis.Frontiers in neurology · 2026Pooled it
- Carotid Artery Stenting in Patients with Symptomatic and Asymptomatic Stenosis: In-Hospital Clinical Outcomes at a Single Neurovascular Center.Journal of clinical 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMost data in carotid stenosis treatment arise from randomized control trials (RCTs) and cohort studies. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare 30-day outcomes in real-world practice from centers providing both modalities.
methodsA data search of the English literature was conducted, using PubMed, EMBASE and CENTRAL databases, until December 2019, using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis statement (PRISMA) guidelines. Only studies reporting on 30-day outcomes from centers, where both techniques were performed, were eligible for this analysis.
resultsIn total, 15 articles were included (16,043 patients). Of the patients, 68.1% were asymptomatic. Carotid artery stenting (CAS) did not differ from carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in terms of stroke (odds ratio (OR) 0.98; 0.77-1.25;
conclusionCarotid revascularization, performed in centers providing both CAS and CEA, is safe and effective. Both techniques did not differ in terms of post-procedural neurological and cardiac events, both in asymptomatic and symptomatic patients. These findings reiterate the importance of a tailored therapeutic strategy and that "real-world" outcomes may only be valid from centers providing both treatments.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.