↓ 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 (78th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
10 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
38 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
138 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 10 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 138 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 138 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 24 17%
Student > Master 21 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 11%
Researcher 13 9%
Other 12 9%
Other 35 25%
Unknown 18 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 70 51%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 12%
Neuroscience 4 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 2%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 2%
Other 16 12%
Unknown 26 19%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 May 2020.
All research outputs
#2,550,187
of 15,729,106 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,237
of 11,268 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#58,166
of 272,277 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#142
of 235 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,729,106 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,268 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its peers.
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 272,277 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 235 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.