↓ Skip to main content

Drug eluting stents versus bare metal stents for the treatment of extracranial vertebral artery disease: a meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of NeuroInterventional Surgery, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Readers on

mendeley
24 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.
Article details
Title
Drug eluting stents versus bare metal stents for the treatment of extracranial vertebral artery disease: a meta-analysis
Published in
Journal of NeuroInterventional Surgery, July 2015
DOI 10.1136/neurintsurg-2015-011697
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

While a growing number of reports offer evidence for the potential of drug eluting stents (DES) in treating atherosclerotic stenosis of the extracranial vertebral artery, their efficacy when compared with bare metal stents (BMS) is uncertain due to the lack of a large prospective randomized trial. A search strategy using the terms 'stents', 'drug-eluting stents', 'atherosclerosis', 'vertebral artery', and 'vertebrobasilar insufficiency' was employed through Medline. Five studies met the criteria for a comparative meta-analysis. The technical/clinical success, periprocedural complications, target vessel revascularization (TVR), rates of restenosis, recurrent symptoms, and overall survival were compared. There was no significant difference in the technical success (OR=1.528, p=0.622), clinical success (OR=1.917, p=0.274), and periprocedural complications (OR=0.741, p=0.614) between the two groups. An OR of 0.388 for no restenosis in the BMS to DES arms (p=0.001) indicated a significantly higher restenosis rate in the BMS group relative to the DES group (33.57% vs 15.49%). When compared with the DES group, the BMS group had a significantly higher rate of recurrent symptoms (2.76% vs 11.26%; OR=3.319, p=0.011) and TVR (4.83% vs 19.21%; OR=4.099, p=0.001). A significantly lower rate of restenosis, recurrent symptoms, and TVR was noted in the DES group compared with the BMS group.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Canada 1 4%
Unknown 23 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 4 17%
Researcher 4 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 13%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 13%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 4%
Other 2 8%
Unknown 7 29%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 54%
Neuroscience 1 4%
Chemistry 1 4%
Engineering 1 4%
Unknown 8 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 26 February 2016.
All research outputs
#6,713,147
of 22,817,213 outputs
Outputs from Journal of NeuroInterventional Surgery
#1,259
of 2,349 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#77,612
of 262,607 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of NeuroInterventional Surgery
#5
of 70 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,817,213 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,349 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.3. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% 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 262,607 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 70 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.