Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 434

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 34 of the 34 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Reanalysis of the Final Results of the European Carotid Surgery Trial

Open access
Rothwell, P. M., Gutnikov, S. A., Warlow, C. P.·2003·Stroke

Abstract

Background and Purpose— The European Carotid Surgery Trial (ECST) and North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial (NASCET) have shown that endarterectomy reduces the risk of stroke in certain patients with recently symptomatic carotid stenosis. However, they differed in the degree of stenosis above which surgery was reported to be effective. This disparity has led to inconsistent clinical recommendations but may have been due to differences between the trials in the methods of measurement of carotid stenosis and definitions of outcome events. Methods— To allow direct comparison of analyses from ECST and NASCET, we remeasured the prerandomization ECST carotid angiograms and redefined the outcome events the same way as in NASCET. Results— We randomized 3018 patients and followed them up for a mean of 73 months. Surgery reduced the 5-year risk of any stroke or surgical death by 5.7% (95% CI, 0 to 11.6) in patients with 50% to 69% stenosis (n=646, P =0.05) and by 21.2% (95% CI, 12.9 to 29.4) in patients with 70% to 99% stenosis without “near occlusion” (n=429, P <0.0001). These benefits were maintained at the 10-year follow-up. However, surgery was of no benefit in patients (n=125) with near occlusion. The effect of surgery in this group was highly significantly different from that in patients with 70% to 99% stenosis without near occlusion ( P =0.002). Surgery was harmful in patients with <30% stenosis (n=1321, P =0.007) and of no benefit in patients with 30% to 49% stenosis (n=478, P =0.6). Conclusions— Results of the ECST and NASCET were consistent when analyzed in the same way. In ECST, surgery was highly beneficial for 70% to 99% stenosis and moderately beneficial for 50% to 69% stenosis. However, contrary to clinical recommendations and current practice, surgery was of little benefit in patients with carotid near occlusion.

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 · 10.1161/01.str.0000054671.71777.c7

Cites

34 of 34 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 34 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Rothwell, P. M., Gutnikov, S. A., & Warlow, C. P.
Venue
Stroke
Published
2003-02
Volume
34
Issue
2
Pages
514-523
ISSN
  • 0039-2499 (ISSN-L)
  • 1524-4628
OpenAlex
W2044009235
Cited by
434
References
34
FWCI
19.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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: Reanalysis of the Final Results of the European Carotid Surgery Trial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1161/01.str.0000054671.71777.c7
The paper
Rothwell, P. M., Gutnikov, S. A., & Warlow, C. P. (2003). Reanalysis of the Final Results of the European Carotid Surgery Trial. Stroke. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.str.0000054671.71777.c7

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.