The DOI matches its Crossref record.
North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial. Methods, patient characteristics, and progress.
Open accessAbstract
Fifty North American centers have combined to evaluate the benefit of carotid endarterectomy in randomized patients who have experienced symptoms related to arteriosclerotic stenosis of the carotid artery and who have received either best medical therapy alone or best medical therapy plus carotid endarterectomy. The outcome events are nonfatal and fatal stroke or death. A three-tier system identifies and adjudicates the type, severity, and location of each stroke and the cause of any death. Data about patients submitted to carotid endarterectomy outside the trial are compiled at the Nonrandomized Data Center at the Mayo Clinic. Between December 27, 1987, and October 1, 1990, 1,212 patients were randomized, 596 to medical therapy, 616 to carotid endarterectomy. Cross-over from the medical to the surgical arm has been low (4.2%). Patients eligible for the trial, but not randomized totaled 1,044; their characteristics were similar to those randomized so that, for the type of symptomatic patient in this study, our conclusions about the benefit of carotid endarterectomy can be generalized. Patients excluded by medical criteria totaled 679. Another 1,591 had carotid endarterectomy, but either lacked the disease under study, were asymptomatic, or received inadequate investigation to meet entry criteria. We set sample size at 1,900 patients, with continuing enrollment. The Monitoring Committee reviews at intervals the confidential analyses performed on the groups with moderate (30-69%) and severe (70-99%) stenosis. Stopping rules will be invoked for one or both groups if unequivocal benefit or harm is identified.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Cited by
Beneficial Effect of Carotid Endarterectomy in Symptomatic Patients with High-Grade Carotid Stenosis
(1991) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm199108153250701 · Cited by 8,368
Biller, J., Feinberg, W. M., Castaldo, J. E., Whittemore, A. D., Harbaugh, R. E., Dempsey, R. J., Caplan, L. R., Kresowik, T. F., Matchar, D. B., Toole, J. F., et al. (1998) · Stroke · doi:10.1161/01.str.29.2.554 · Cited by 658
Brott, T. G., Halperin, J. L., Abbara, S., Bacharach, J. M., Barr, J. D., Bush, R. L., Cates, C. U., Creager, M. A., Fowler, S. B., Friday, G., et al. (2011) · Journal of the American College of Cardiology · doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2010.11.006 · Cited by 447
Reanalysis of the Final Results of the European Carotid Surgery Trial
Rothwell, P. M., Gutnikov, S. A., & Warlow, C. P. (2003) · Stroke · doi:10.1161/01.str.0000054671.71777.c7 · Cited by 434
The Rotterdam Study: 2016 objectives and design update
Hofman, A., Brusselle, G. G. O., Murad, S. D., van Duijn, C. M., Franco, O. H., Goedegebure, A., Ikram, M. A., Klaver, C. C. W., Nijsten, T. E. C., Peeters, R. P., et al. (2015) · European Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1007/s10654-015-0082-x · Cited by 382
Metadata
- Venue
- Stroke
- Published
- 1991-06
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 711-720
- ISSN
- 0039-2499 (ISSN-L)
- 1524-4628
- OpenAlex
- W2560269372
- Cited by
- 1,133
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 22.82
- 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: North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial. Methods, patient characteristics, and progress. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1161/01.str.22.6.711
- The paper
- North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial. Methods, patient characteristics, and progress. (1991). Stroke. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.str.22.6.711
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.