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.
Thank you for submitting a comment on this article. It will be reviewed by JAMA Neurology editors. You will be notified when your comment has been published. Comments should not exceed 500 words of text and 10 references.
Do not submit personal medical questions or information that could identify a specific patient, questions about a particular case, or general inquiries to an author. Only content that has not been published, posted, or submitted elsewhere should be submitted. By submitting this Comment, you and any coauthors transfer copyright to the journal if your Comment is posted.
* = Required Field
Disclosure of Any Conflicts of Interest*
Indicate all relevant conflicts of interest of each author below, including all relevant financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including, but not limited to, employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speakers’ bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued. If all authors have none, check "No potential conflicts or relevant financial interests" in the box below. Please also indicate any funding received in support of this work. The information will be posted with your response.
Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.
Download citation file:
Web of Science® Times Cited: 1
Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.
More Listings atJAMACareerCenter.com >
The Rational Clinical Examination
Evidence Summary and Review 5
The Rational Clinical Examination
Updated Literature Search
All results at
Enter your username and email address. We'll send you a link to reset your password.
Enter your username and email address. We'll send instructions on how to reset your password to the email address we have on record.
Athens and Shibboleth are access management services that provide single sign-on to protected resources. They replace the multiple user names and passwords necessary to access subscription-based content with a single user name and password that can be entered once per session. It operates independently of a user's location or IP address. If your institution uses Athens or Shibboleth authentication, please contact your site administrator to receive your user name and password.