↓ Skip to main content

Angioplasty versus stenting for iliac artery lesions

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2015
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

8 tweeters
1 Facebook page


12 Dimensions

Readers on

105 Mendeley
1 CiteULike
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.
Angioplasty versus stenting for iliac artery lesions
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd007561.pub2
Pubmed ID

Joost Bekken, Hidde Jongsma, Ninos Ayez, Cornelis J Hoogewerf, Vincent Van Weel, Bram Fioole


Atherosclerosis of the iliac artery may result in a stenosis or occlusion, which is defined as iliac artery occlusive disease. A range of surgical and endovascular treatment options are available. Open surgical procedures have excellent patency rates but at the cost of substantial morbidity and mortality. Endovascular treatment has good safety and short-term efficacy with decreased morbidity, complications and costs compared with open surgical procedures. Both percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA) and stenting are commonly used endovascular treatment options for iliac artery occlusive disease. A stenotic or occlusive lesion of the iliac artery can be treated successfully by PTA alone. If PTA alone is technically unsuccessful, additional stent placement is indicated. Alternatively, a stent could be placed primarily to treat an iliac artery stenosis or occlusion (primary stenting, PS). However, there is limited evidence to prove which endovascular treatment strategy is superior for stenotic and occlusive lesions of the iliac arteries. To assess the effects of percutaneous transluminal angioplasty versus primary stenting for stenotic and occlusive lesions of the iliac artery. The Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases Group Trials Search Co-ordinator searched the Specialised Register (last searched April 2015) and Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS) (2015, Issue 3). The TSC searched trial databases for details of ongoing and unpublished studies. We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing percutaneous transluminal angioplasty and primary stenting for iliac artery occlusive disease. We excluded quasi-randomised trials, case reports, case-control or cohort studies. We excluded no studies based on the language of publication. Two authors (JB, NA) independently selected suitable trials. JB and HJ independently performed data extraction and trial quality assessment. When there was disagreement, consensus would be reached first by discussion among both authors and, if still no consensus could be reached, through consultation with BF. We identified two RCTs with a combined total of 397 participants as meeting the selection criteria. One study included mostly stenotic lesions (95%), whereas the second study included only iliac artery occlusions. Both studies were of moderate methodological quality with some risk of bias relating to selective reporting and non-blinding of participants and personnel. The overall quality of evidence was low due to the small number of included studies, the differences in study populations and definitions of the outcome variables. Due to the heterogeneity among these two studies it was not possible to pool the data. Percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA) with selective stenting and primary stenting (PS) resulted in similar improvement in the stage of peripheral arterial occlusive disease according to Rutherford's criteria, resolution of symptoms and signs, improvement of quality of life, technical success of the procedure and patency of the treated vessel. Improvement in walking distance as reported by the patient, measured claudication distance, ulcer healing, major amputation-free survival and delayed complications (> 72 hours) were not reported in either of the studies. In one trial, PTA of iliac artery occlusions resulted in a significantly higher rate of major complications, especially distal embolisation. The other trial showed a significantly higher mean ankle brachial index (ABI) at two years in the PTA group (1.0) compared to the mean ABI in the PS group (0.91); mean difference (MD) 0.09 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.04 to 0.14; P value = 0.001, analysis performed by review authors). However, at other time points there was no difference. We consider it unlikely that this difference is attributable to the study procedure, and also believe this difference may not be clinically relevant. There is insufficient evidence to assess the effects of PTA versus PS for stenotic and occlusive lesions of the iliac artery. From one study it appears that PS in iliac artery occlusions may result in lower distal embolisation rates. More studies are required to come to a firm conclusion.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 105 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
France 1 <1%
Unknown 104 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 23 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 13%
Researcher 12 11%
Student > Bachelor 10 10%
Student > Postgraduate 8 8%
Other 17 16%
Unknown 21 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 51 49%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 9%
Psychology 6 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Other 11 10%
Unknown 22 21%

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 23 January 2016.
All research outputs
of 12,527,219 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 234,350 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 238 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,219 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 78th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,923 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.2. 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 234,350 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 238 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.