Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 371

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

European Stroke Organisation guideline on endarterectomy and stenting for carotid artery stenosis

Open access
Bonati, Leo H, Kakkos, Stavros, Berkefeld, Joachim, de Borst, Gert J, Bulbulia, Richard, Halliday, Alison, van Herzeele, Isabelle, Koncar, Igor, McCabe, Dominick JH, Lal, Avtar, Ricco, Jean-Baptiste, Ringleb, Peter, Taylor-Rowan, Martin, Eckstein, Hans-Henning·2021·European Stroke Journal

Abstract

Atherosclerotic stenosis of the internal carotid artery is an important cause of stroke. The aim of this guideline is to analyse the evidence pertaining to medical, surgical and endovascular treatment of patients with carotid stenosis. These guidelines were developed based on the ESO standard operating procedure and followed the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. The working group identified relevant questions, performed systematic reviews and meta-analyses of the literature, assessed the quality of the available evidence, and wrote recommendations. Based on moderate quality evidence, we recommend carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in patients with ≥60–99% asymptomatic carotid stenosis considered to be at increased risk of stroke on best medical treatment (BMT) alone. We also recommend CEA for patients with ≥70–99% symptomatic stenosis, and we suggest CEA for patients with 50–69% symptomatic stenosis. Based on high quality evidence, we recommend CEA should be performed early, ideally within two weeks of the last retinal or cerebral ischaemic event in patients with ≥50–99% symptomatic stenosis. Based on low quality evidence, carotid artery stenting (CAS) may be considered in patients < 70 years old with symptomatic ≥50–99% carotid stenosis. Several randomised trials supporting these recommendations were started decades ago, and BMT, CEA and CAS have evolved since. The results of another large trial comparing outcomes after CAS versus CEA in patients with asymptomatic stenosis are anticipated in the near future. Further trials are needed to reassess the benefits of carotid revascularisation in combination with modern BMT in subgroups of patients with carotid stenosis.

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 · 10.1177/23969873211012121This paper is marked retracted.

Cites

6 of 6 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 6 references

Cited by

See all 371

Metadata

Authors
Bonati, L. H., Kakkos, S., Berkefeld, J., de Borst, G. J., Bulbulia, R., Halliday, A., van Herzeele, I., Koncar, I., McCabe, D. J., Lal, A., Ricco, J.-B., Ringleb, P., Taylor-Rowan, M., & Eckstein, H.-H.
Venue
European Stroke Journal
Published
2021-06-01
Volume
6
Issue
2
Pages
I-XLVII
ISSN
  • 2396-9873 (ISSN-L)
  • 2396-9881
OpenAlex
W4232492418
Cited by
371
References
6
FWCI
32.06
Type
journal article
Language
en
Status
Retracted
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: European Stroke Organisation guideline on endarterectomy and stenting for carotid artery stenosis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/23969873211012121
The paper
Bonati, L. H., Kakkos, S., Berkefeld, J., de Borst, G. J., Bulbulia, R., Halliday, A., van Herzeele, I., Koncar, I., McCabe, D. J., Lal, A., Ricco, J.-B., Ringleb, P., Taylor-Rowan, M., & Eckstein, H.-H. (2021). European Stroke Organisation guideline on endarterectomy and stenting for carotid artery stenosis. European Stroke Journal. https://doi.org/10.1177/23969873211012121

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.