We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Correspondence |

Methodological Remarks Concerning the Recent Meta-analysis of Carotid Artery Stenting vs Carotid Endarterectomy

Konstantinos P. Economopoulos, MD; Theodoros N. Sergentanis, MS
Arch Neurol. 2011;68(4):543-544. doi:10.1001/archneurol.2011.39.
Text Size: A A A
Published online


We read with great interest the comprehensive meta-analysis by Bangalore et al1 that reached important conclusions regarding outcomes after carotid artery stenting and carotid endarterectomy. Nevertheless, a variety of methodological issues seem worth addressing.

Concerning short-term outcomes, the numbers from the Stenting and Angioplasty With Protection in Patients at High Risk for Endarterectomy trial (Figure 2A) seem questionable, as the original total number of events was 8 of 167 (carotid artery stenting) vs 16 of 167 (carotid endarterectomy); evidently the numbers provided by Bangalore et al1 in symptomatic and asymptomatic patients do not sum to those above. Rather surprisingly, the numbers for the Stent-Protected Angioplasty vs Carotid Endarterectomy (SPACE) trial in 2 distinct outcomes (Figure 2, A and B) were identical (46 of 607 vs 38 of 589); this would necessitate that no myocardial infarction has occurred periprocedurally in SPACE. Regarding Trial of Endarterectomy vs Stenting to Carotid Atherovascular Stenosis–China (TESCAS-C) the numbers provided by Bangalore et al1 seem in discrepancy with the original ones; Figure 2A should ideally read 4 of 82 vs 7 of 84, whereas Figure 2B should read 3 of 82 vs 5 of 84.

Sign in

Purchase Options

• Buy this article
• Subscribe to the journal

First Page Preview

View Large
First page PDF preview





Also Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
Please click the checkbox indicating that you have read the full article in order to submit your answers.
Your answers have been saved for later.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Submit a Comment


Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Web of Science® Times Cited: 1

Sign in

Purchase Options

• Buy this article
• Subscribe to the journal

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

See Also...
Articles Related By Topic
Related Collections
PubMed Articles

The Rational Clinical Examination: Evidence-Based Clinical Diagnosis
Updated Literature Search

The Rational Clinical Examination: Evidence-Based Clinical Diagnosis
Evidence Summary and Review 5