ArticleSurgical neurology international2026
Calcified nodules in the cervical carotid artery.
Article in Surgical neurology international, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Calcified nodules (CNs) are a distinct morphological subtype of calcified plaques that cause acute coronary events. However, their clinical relevance in carotid artery disease remains poorly understood. Case Description: We report two cases of symptomatic carotid artery stenosis caused by CNs, both successfully treated with carotid endarterectomy (CEA). In both cases, computed tomography angiography (CTA) revealed severely stenotic lesions with bulky calcified plaques protruding into the vascular lumen. Plaque imaging with magnetic resonance imaging and carotid ultrasonography suggested the presence of calcified components. Surgical excision confirmed the diagnosis of CNs through pathological evaluation. Both patients had favorable outcomes with no neurological deficits on discharge. Notably, CNs are rarely reported in the context of carotid artery disease, and preoperative diagnosis remains challenging due to the lack of established imaging criteria. CTA may be a useful non-invasive tool for identifying CNs, as shown in coronary artery studies. Conclusion: These cases demonstrate that CNs can cause severe carotid stenosis requiring CEA. CTA may aid in the preoperative identification of CNs, and when CNs are identified on CTA, CEA should be the preferred treatment over carotid artery stenting. Further studies are warranted to clarify the diagnostic criteria and treatment strategies for CNs in carotid disease.
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.