↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

Efficacy and safety of stenting for elderly patients with severe and symptomatic carotid artery stenosis: a critical meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Interventions in Aging, January 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
28 Mendeley
Title
Efficacy and safety of stenting for elderly patients with severe and symptomatic carotid artery stenosis: a critical meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
Published in
Clinical Interventions in Aging, January 2015
DOI 10.2147/cia.s91721
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yugang Jiang, Yi-An Ouyang, Mengqiang Yu, Yunze Zhang, Hao Huang

Abstract

To investigate both short-term and long-term therapeutic efficacy and safety of carotid artery stenting (CAS) and carotid artery endarterectomy (CEA) for elderly patients with severe and symptomatic carotid artery stenosis. PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Clinical Trials Register Centers, and Google Scholar were comprehensively searched. After identifying relevant randomized controlled trials, methodological quality was assessed by using Cochrane tools of bias assessment. Meta-analysis was performed by RevMan software, and subgroup analyses according to different follow-up periods were also conducted. Sixteen articles of nine randomized controlled trials containing 6,984 patients were included. Compared with CEA, CAS was associated with high risks of stroke during periprocedural 30 days (risk ratio [RR]=1.47, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.15-1.88), 48 months (RR=1.37, 95% CI: 1.11-1.70), and >48 months (RR=1.76, 95% CI: 1.34-2.31). There was no significant difference in the aspects of death, disabling stroke, or death at any time between the groups. For other periprocedural complications, CAS decreased the risk of myocardial infarction (RR=0.44, 95% CI: 0.26-0.75), cranial nerve palsy (RR=0.09, 95% CI: 0.04-0.22) and hematoma (RR=0.31, 95% CI: 0.14-0.68) compared with CEA, while it increased the risk of bradycardia or hypotension (RR=8.45, 95% CI 2.91-24.58). Compared with CEA, CAS reduced hematoma, periprocedural myocardial infarction, and cranial nerve palsy, while it was associated with higher risks of both short-term and long-term nondisabling stroke. And they seemed to be equivalent in other outcome measures. As regards to its minimal invasion, it should be applied only in specific patients.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Russia 1 4%
Unknown 27 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 18%
Student > Master 5 18%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 14%
Student > Bachelor 2 7%
Other 2 7%
Other 4 14%
Unknown 6 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 61%
Neuroscience 1 4%
Psychology 1 4%
Unknown 9 32%

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 29 October 2015.
All research outputs
#4,571,670
of 6,504,996 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#533
of 844 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#131,989
of 206,856 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#38
of 57 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 6,504,996 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 844 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.4. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% 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 206,856 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 57 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.