MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7117644321 · doi:10.19166/lijn.v1i3.10401

Carotid Endarterectomy Versus Carotid Artery Stenting With Double-Layer Micromesh Stent in Carotid Angioplasty: Network Meta-Analysis

2025· article· W7117644321 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Evelyn Natalie Hailianto, Fransiska Livia, Jesselyne Aurelia Santoso Kho, Clayton Christopher Hermawan, Jason Michael Prawira, Julius July

Bibliographic record

VenueLumina Indonesian Journal of Neurology · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldMedicine
TopicCerebrovascular and Carotid Artery Diseases
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCarotid endarterectomyAsymptomaticObservational studyStenosisStroke (engine)Carotid stentingStentCarotid arteries

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) remains the gold standard for carotid stenosis, but modern carotid artery stenting (CAS) with double-layer micromesh stents (e.g., CGuard, Roadsaver [RS]) offers potential reductions in peri-procedural embolic risk. However, comparative evidence between CEA and modern CAS remains limited. Methods: A systematic search of PubMed, ScienceDirect, and Europe PMC (June 23,2025) identified randomized and observational studies on symptomatic or high grade asymptomatic carotid stenosis using terms including “double-layer stent,” “micromesh,” “Roadsaver,” “CGuard,” and “carotid endarterectomy.” Reviews, meta analyses, and case reports were excluded. Comparisons included single-layer CAS vs. CEA, single-layer CAS vs. CGuard/RS, and indirect CEA vs. CGuard/RS. Outcomes were neurological complications and neurological death. Study quality was assessed using Cochrane RoB 2.0 and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). A frequentist random effects network meta-analysis was performed using MetaInsight. Results: Eleven studies (7 RCTs, 4 observational; n=9483) were included. Seven had moderate RoB 2.0 risk, while three observational studies had fair quality and one study had good quality according to NOS. No significant difference was detected in neurological complications between CEA and CGuard/RS (OR 0.79; 95% CI 0.34-1.80), and neurological death was similar among CEA, CGuard/RS, and CAS. When compared with conventional CAS, CEA (OR 0.90; 95% CI 0.69–1.18) and CGuard/RS (OR 1.04; 95% CI 0.30–3.65) showed no significant differences. The direct comparison between CEA and CGuard/RS also demonstrated no significant effect (OR 0.86; 95% CI 0.24–3.11).Conclusions: This study found no significant differences in stroke prevention or safety CEA and DLMS. Larger comparative studies are required to establish their relative clinical effectiveness.Keywords: carotid artery stenting; carotid endarterectomy; micromesh stent; single layer stent; stroke

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.077

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0130.041
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.237 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLumina Indonesian Journal of Neurology→Same topicCerebrovascular and Carotid Artery Diseases→French-language works237,207→