Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36942176›Full record

ReviewCureus2023

Carotid Endarterectomy Versus Stenting for the Treatment of Patients With Carotid Artery Stenosis: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Advait M Vasavada, Priyansha Singh, Arshia Firdaus, Dakshin Meenashi Sundaram, Malvik Patel, Ganeev Singh, Logesh Palanisamy, Sana Afreen Ansari, Sumaina Thummala, Harsh Pandya

Open access · diamondFull text readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
4.4field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. How to Penetrate the Wall of an Unintentionally Deployed Wallstent in the External Carotid Artery for Stenting of an Internal Carotid Artery Lesion.The International journal of angiology : official publication of the International College of Angiology, Inc · 2025
    Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. 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

10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Advait M VasavadaInternal Medicine, Shri M. P. Shah Government Medical College, Jamnagar, IND.
Priyansha SinghInternal Medicine, Smt. Nathiba Hargovandas Lakhmichand (NHL) Municipal Medical College, Ahmedabad, IND.
Arshia FirdausSurgery, Deccan College of Medical Sciences, Hyderabad, IND.
Dakshin Meenashi SundaramInternal Medicine, Employees' State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) Medical College & Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences and Research (PGIMSR), Chennai, IND.
Malvik PatelSurgery, Government Medical College, Vadodara, IND.
Ganeev SinghSurgery, Sri Guru Ram Das Institute of Medical Sciences & Research, Amritsar, IND.
Logesh PalanisamyInternal Medicine, Government Mohan Kumaramangalam Medical College, Salem, IND.
Sana Afreen AnsariInternal Medicine, Deccan College of Medical Sciences, Hyderabad, IND.
Sumaina ThummalaInternal Medicine, Karpaga Vinayaga Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Center, Maduranthakam, IND.
Harsh PandyaGeneral Surgery, Shardaben General Hospital, Ahmedabad, IND.
Deccan College of Medical Sciences · INSmt. N.H.L. Municipal Medical College · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is a surgical procedure that treats the narrowed carotid arteries, which may be narrowed by atherosclerosis. Stenting is the insertion of a wire mesh scaffold into the narrowed portion of the carotid artery to keep it open by preventing blood from clotting. Using the study done over 10 years back as a point of reference, this study will seek an update on an assessment comparing CEA and stenting in studies carried out between 2015 and to date. The PICOS (population, intervention, control, outcome, and study designs) criteria were used to construct a set of inclusion and exclusion guidelines. This meta-analysis and systematic review used two forms of investigative analysis; both quantitative and qualitative assessments. From the studies, stroke (95% CI: 0.51-0.71, P < 0.001), myocardial infarction (95% CI: 1.49-3.42, P = 0.001), and stroke or death analysis (95% CI: 0.53-0.77, P < 0.001) were noted to be significant. From the analysis, CEA was observed as having better treatment results in terms of stroke events and stroke or death incidences when compared to stenting. Carotid stenting was observed as having lower cases of myocardial infarctions when compared to endarterectomy.

Indexed as

carotid artery stenosiscarotid endarterectomycarotid stentpost carotid endarterectomyrevascularizationstentingsystematic review and meta analysis

Identifiers

PMID36942176
PMCPMC10024598
OpenAlexW4321033711

What Socratic holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
reference markers read8
measurements read42
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.