Comparative Analysis of Endovascular Intervention and Endarterectomy in Patients with Femoral Artery Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Peripheral artery disease is a prevalent illness affecting more than 200 million people worldwide. A commonly used technique to manage the condition has been open endarterectomy. However, in recent times, a shift towards minimally invasive techniques has resulted in endovascular intervention as a popular alternative. This review aims to assess the safety and efficacy of endovascular intervention when compared with endarterectomy. A systematic review of the articles published in PubMed, Ovid, Embase, and Scopus within the last 10 years was conducted. The PRISMA guidelines were adhered to, and the Newcastle-Ottawa and NICE quality assessment scales were used. A meta-analysis of proportions was performed using the RStudio software (RStudio Team (2021). RStudio: Integrated Development Environment for R, PBC, Boston, MA, USA). Twenty-six studies were included, with a total of 7126 patients (endovascular, 2496; endarterectomy, 4630). Technical success was greater for endarterectomy than endovascular intervention with an odds ratio of 0.38; 95% CI [0.27-0.54]. In terms of safety as well endovascular intervention was better than endarterectomy with an odds ratio of 0.22; 95% CI [0.15 to 0.31] for wound infection. Endovascular intervention is a safe and effective procedure; however, it cannot be considered superior to endarterectomy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".