The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Aspirin vs anticoagulation in carotid artery dissection: A study of 298 patients
Abstract
BACKGROUND: No randomized study has yet compared efficacy and safety of aspirin and anticoagulants in patients with spontaneous dissection of the cervical carotid artery (sICAD). METHODS: Prospectively collected data from 298 consecutive patients with sICAD (56% men; mean age 46 +/- 10 years) treated with anticoagulants alone (n = 202) or aspirin alone (n = 96) were retrospectively analyzed. Admission diagnosis was ischemic stroke in 165, TIA in 37, retinal ischemia in 8, and local symptoms and signs (headache, neck pain, Horner syndrome, cranial nerve palsy) in 80 patients, while 8 patients were asymptomatic. Clinical follow-up was obtained after 3 months by neurologic examination (97% of patients) or structured telephone interview. Outcome measures were 1) new cerebral ischemic events, defined as ischemic stroke, TIA, or retinal ischemia, 2) symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage, and 3) major extracranial bleeding. RESULTS: During follow-up, ischemic events were rare (ischemic stroke, 0.3%; TIA, 3.4%; retinal ischemia, 1%); their frequency did not significantly differ between patients treated with anticoagulants (5.9%) and those treated with aspirin (2.1%). The same was true for hemorrhagic adverse events (anticoagulants, 2%; aspirin, 1%). New ischemic events were significantly more frequent in patients with ischemic events at onset (6.2%) than in patients with local symptoms or asymptomatic patients (1.1%). CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of a nonrandomized study, our data suggest that frequency of new cerebral and retinal ischemic events in patients with spontaneous dissection of the cervical carotid artery is low and probably independent of the type of antithrombotic treatment (aspirin or anticoagulants).
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
Cites
Cited by
Kernan, W. N., Ovbiagele, B., Black, H. R., Bravata, D. M., Chimowitz, M. I., Ezekowitz, M. D., Fang, M. C., Fisher, M., Furie, K. L., Heck, D. V., et al. (2014) · Stroke · doi:10.1161/str.0000000000000024 · Cited by 5,170
(2015) · The Lancet Neurology · doi:10.1016/s1474-4422(15)70018-9 · Cited by 503
Metadata
- Authors
- Georgiadis, D., Arnold, M., von Buedingen, H. C., Valko, P., Sarikaya, H., Rousson, V., Mattle, H. P., Bousser, M. G., & Baumgartner, R. W.
- Venue
- Neurology
- Published
- 2009-05-26
- Volume
- 72
- Issue
- 21
- Pages
- 1810-1815
- ISSN
- 0028-3878 (ISSN-L)
- 1526-632X
- OpenAlex
- W2156733283
- Cited by
- 170
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 17.02
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Aspirin vs anticoagulation in carotid artery dissection: A study of 298 patients. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1212/wnl.0b013e3181a2a50a
- The paper
- Georgiadis, D., Arnold, M., von Buedingen, H. C., Valko, P., Sarikaya, H., Rousson, V., Mattle, H. P., Bousser, M. G., & Baumgartner, R. W. (2009). Aspirin vs anticoagulation in carotid artery dissection: A study of 298 patients. Neurology. https://doi.org/10.1212/wnl.0b013e3181a2a50a
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.