SynthesisFrontiers in neurology2024
Efficacy and safety of drug-eluting stents versus bare-metal stents in symptomatic intracranial and vertebral artery stenosis: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in neurology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Stent angioplasty in patients with vertebral artery ostial stenosis: clinical and angiographic outcomes in 525 patients.Stroke and vascular neurology · 2026Article
- Sirolimus Drug-Eluting Stent (DES) in vertebral artery ostial stenosis: insights from a multicenter analysis.Neuroradiology · 2026Article
- Dedicated drug-eluting stents versus bare-metal stents for vertebral artery origin stenosis: a real-world single-center experience.BMC neurology · 2025Observational
- Safety and efficacy of extracranial vertebral artery stenting in elderly patients with symptomatic vertebral artery stenosis.Frontiers in aging neuroscience · 2025Article
- Net meta-analysis: comparison of bare metal stent, drug-coated balloon and drug-eluting stent in the treatment of cerebral arterial stenosis.Frontiers in neurology · 2025Review
- Clinical efficacy of drug-eluting stents in the treatment of vertebral artery stenosis and analysis of factors contributing to stent restenosis.Frontiers in neurologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: This study aims to present the first comprehensive meta-analysis assessing the effectiveness and safety of drug-eluting stents (DES) versus bare-metal stents (BMS) in treating intracranial and vertebral artery stenosis. Methods: A comprehensive examination was undertaken to compare the effectiveness and safety of DES and BMS in individuals experiencing symptomatic stenosis in the intracranial and vertebral arteries through an in-depth analysis of clinical research. We conducted an extensive search across multiple databases including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library up to September 2024. The emphasis of our investigation was on various outcomes including rates of in-stent restenosis, symptomatic occurrences of in-stent restenosis, incidence of stroke, procedural success, mortality rates, complications associated with the procedure, and any adverse events. Results: Our analysis included 12 studies with a total of 1,243 patients (562 in the DES group and 681 in the BMS group). The findings demonstrated a significantly lower rate of in-stent restenosis in the DES group for both intracranial [odds ratio (OR): 0.23; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.13 to 0.41; Conclusion: The comparison indicates that DES significantly reduces the risk of in-stent restenosis and postoperative strokes in patients with vertebral artery stenosis, compared to BMS. For both intracranial and vertebral artery stenosis, DES and BMS exhibit comparable safety profiles. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=439967.
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.