Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 550

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Long-term outcomes after stenting versus endarterectomy for treatment of symptomatic carotid stenosis: the International Carotid Stenting Study (ICSS) randomised trial

Open access
Bonati, Leo H, Dobson, Joanna, Featherstone, Roland L, Ederle, Jörg, van der Worp, H Bart, de Borst, Gert J, Mali, Willem P Th M, Beard, Jonathan D, Cleveland, Trevor, Engelter, Stefan T, Lyrer, Philippe A, Ford, Gary A, Dorman, Paul J, Brown, Martin M·2015·The Lancet

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Stenting is an alternative to endarterectomy for treatment of carotid artery stenosis, but long-term efficacy is uncertain. We report long-term data from the randomised International Carotid Stenting Study comparison of these treatments. METHODS: Patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis were randomly assigned 1:1 to open treatment with stenting or endarterectomy at 50 centres worldwide. Randomisation was computer generated centrally and allocated by telephone call or fax. Major outcomes were assessed by an independent endpoint committee unaware of treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was fatal or disabling stroke in any territory after randomisation to the end of follow-up. Analysis was by intention to treat ([ITT] all patients) and per protocol from 31 days after treatment (all patients in whom assigned treatment was completed). Functional ability was rated with the modified Rankin scale. This study is registered, number ISRCTN25337470. FINDINGS: 1713 patients were assigned to stenting (n=855) or endarterectomy (n=858) and followed up for a median of 4·2 years (IQR 3·0-5·2, maximum 10·0). Three patients withdrew immediately and, therefore, the ITT population comprised 1710 patients. The number of fatal or disabling strokes (52 vs 49) and cumulative 5-year risk did not differ significantly between the stenting and endarterectomy groups (6·4% vs 6·5%; hazard ratio [HR] 1·06, 95% CI 0·72-1·57, p=0·77). Any stroke was more frequent in the stenting group than in the endarterectomy group (119 vs 72 events; ITT population, 5-year cumulative risk 15·2% vs 9·4%, HR 1·71, 95% CI 1·28-2·30, p<0·001; per-protocol population, 5-year cumulative risk 8·9% vs 5·8%, 1·53, 1·02-2·31, p=0·04), but were mainly non-disabling strokes. The distribution of modified Rankin scale scores at 1 year, 5 years, or final follow-up did not differ significantly between treatment groups. INTERPRETATION: Long-term functional outcome and risk of fatal or disabling stroke are similar for stenting and endarterectomy for symptomatic carotid stenosis. FUNDING: Medical Research Council, Stroke Association, Sanofi-Synthélabo, European Union.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0140-6736(14)61184-3

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 3 references

Cited by

See all 550

Metadata

Authors
Bonati, L. H., Dobson, J., Featherstone, R. L., Ederle, J., van der Worp, H. B., de Borst, G. J., Mali, W. P. T. M., Beard, J. D., Cleveland, T., Engelter, S. T., Lyrer, P. A., Ford, G. A., Dorman, P. J., & Brown, M. M.
Venue
The Lancet
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-02
Volume
385
Issue
9967
Pages
529-538
ISSN
  • 0099-5355 (ISSN-L)
  • 0140-6736
OpenAlex
W2109652445
Cited by
550
References
3
FWCI
33.92
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Long-term outcomes after stenting versus endarterectomy for treatment of symptomatic carotid stenosis: the International Carotid Stenting Study (ICSS) randomised trial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s0140-6736(14)61184-3
The paper
Bonati, L. H., Dobson, J., Featherstone, R. L., Ederle, J., van der Worp, H. B., de Borst, G. J., Mali, W. P. T. M., Beard, J. D., Cleveland, T., Engelter, S. T., Lyrer, P. A., Ford, G. A., Dorman, P. J., & Brown, M. M. (2015). Long-term outcomes after stenting versus endarterectomy for treatment of symptomatic carotid stenosis: the International Carotid Stenting Study (ICSS) randomised trial. The Lancet. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(14)61184-3

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.