↓ Skip to main content

Carotid endarterectomy for symptomatic carotid stenosis

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
11 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
36 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
Carotid endarterectomy for symptomatic carotid stenosis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd001081.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Saritphat Orrapin, Kittipan Rerkasem

Abstract

Stroke is the third leading cause of death and the most common cause of long-term disability. Severe narrowing (stenosis) of the carotid artery is an important cause of stroke. Surgical treatment (carotid endarterectomy) may reduce the risk of stroke, but carries a risk of operative complications. This is an update of the Cochrane Review, originally published in 1999, and most recently updated in 2011. To determine the balance of benefit versus risk of endarterectomy plus best medical management compared with best medical management alone, in people with a recent symptomatic carotid stenosis (i.e. transient ischaemic attack (TIA) or non-disabling stroke). We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (last searched in July 2016), CENTRAL (2016, Issue 7), MEDLINE (1966 to July 2016), Embase (1990 to July 2016), Web of Science Core Collection, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) portal, and handsearched relevant journals and reference lists. We included randomised controlled trials.   DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed risk of bias, and extracted the data. We included three trials involving 6343 participants. As the trials differed in the methods of measurement of carotid stenosis and in the definition of stroke, we did a pooled analysis of individual patient data on 6092 participants (35,000 patient years of follow-up), after reassessing the carotid angiograms and outcomes from all three trials using the primary electronic data files, and redefined outcome events where necessary, to achieve comparability.On re-analysis, there were no significant differences between the trials in the risks of any of the main outcomes in either of the treatment groups, or in the effects of surgery. Surgery increased the five-year risk of ipsilateral ischaemic stroke in participants with less than 30% stenosis (N = 1746, risk ratio (RR) 1.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80 to 2.01), had no significant effect in participants with 30% to 49% stenosis (N = 1429, RR 0.93, 95%CI 0.62 to 1.38), was of benefit in participants with 50% to 69% stenosis (N = 1549, RR 0.84, 95%CI 0.60 to 1.18), and was highly beneficial in participants with 70% to 99% stenosis without near-occlusion (N = 1095, RR 0.47, 95%CI 0.25 to 0.88). However, there was no evidence of benefit (N = 271, RR 1.03, 95%CI 0.57 to 1.84) in participants with near-occlusions. Ipsilateral ischaemic stroke describes insufficient blood flow to the cerebral hemisphere, secondary to same side severe stenosis of the internal carotid artery. Endarterectomy was of some benefit for participants with 50% to 69% symptomatic stenosis (moderate-quality evidence), and highly beneficial for those with 70% to 99% stenosis without near-occlusion (moderate-quality evidence). We found no benefit in people with carotid near-occlusion (high-quality evidence).

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 36 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 1 3%
Student > Postgraduate 1 3%
Unknown 34 94%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 1 3%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 3%
Unknown 34 94%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 28 April 2019.
All research outputs
#3,028,927
of 13,288,667 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,648
of 10,547 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#71,525
of 267,702 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#164
of 237 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,288,667 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 77th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,547 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. 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 267,702 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 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 237 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.