↓ Skip to main content

Temporal Changes in Periprocedural Events in the Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy Versus Stenting Trial

Overview of attention for article published in Stroke, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
42 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Temporal Changes in Periprocedural Events in the Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy Versus Stenting Trial
Published in
Stroke, July 2015
DOI 10.1161/strokeaha.115.008898
Pubmed ID
Authors

George Howard, L Nelson Hopkins, Wesley S Moore, Barry T Katzen, Elie Chakhtoura, William F Morrish, Robert D Ferguson, Robert J Hye, Fayaz A Shawl, Mark R Harrigan, Jenifer H Voeks, Virginia J Howard, Brajesh K Lal, James F Meschia, Thomas G Brott

Abstract

Post-hoc, we hypothesized that over the recruitment period of the Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy Versus Stenting Trial (CREST), increasing experience and improved patient selection with carotid stenting, and to a lesser extent, carotid endarterectomy would contribute to lower periprocedural event rates. Three study periods with approximately the same number of patients were defined to span recruitment. Composite and individual rates of periprocedural stroke, myocardial infarction, and death rate were calculated separately by treatment assignment (carotid stenting/carotid endarterectomy). Temporal changes in unadjusted event rates, and rates after adjustment for temporal changes in patient characteristics, were assessed. For patients randomized to carotid stenting, there was no significant temporal change in the unadjusted composite rates that declined from 6.2% in the first period, to 4.9% in the second, and 4.6% in the third (P=0.28). Adjustment for patient characteristics attenuated the rates to 6.0%, 5.9%, and 5.6% (P=0.85). For carotid endarterectomy-randomized patients, both the composite and the combined stroke and death outcome decreased between periods 1 and 2 and then increased in period 3. The hypothesized temporal reduction of stroke+death events for carotid stenting-treated patients was not observed. Further adjustment for changes in patient characteristics between periods, including the addition of asymptomatic patients and a >50% decrease in proportion of octogenarians enrolled, resulted in practically identical rates. URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00004732.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 42 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 10%
Other 4 10%
Student > Bachelor 3 7%
Professor 3 7%
Other 8 19%
Unknown 14 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 55%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 5%
Neuroscience 2 5%
Social Sciences 1 2%
Sports and Recreations 1 2%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 13 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 July 2015.
All research outputs
#20,657,128
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Stroke
#11,068
of 12,372 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#202,232
of 276,420 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Stroke
#149
of 154 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,372 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.6. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 276,420 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 154 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.