Talk:Carotid artery stenosis

Medicine: Cardiology / Neurology Mid‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Cardiology task force (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by the Neurology task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Carotid artery stenosis.

PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles)
The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine.
Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

Ambiguous percentage problem?

I think there's an ambiguous (or possibly outright incorrect) statement about the efficacy of a surgery. Misinterpreting the statement could have serious consequences for someone making a decision, so this is important.

The main article says: carotid endarterectomy by selected surgeons reduces the 5-year absolute incidence of all strokes or perioperative death by approximately 5%.

The way I read that sentence, it sounded like this: If the incidence of stroke/death in the next 5 years is x, then the surgery reduces x by 5% of x (i.e. .05 * x), resulting in the new incidence .95 * x.

To give a concrete example, if the incidence were 20%, then (under this interpretation) the surgery reduces that incidence to 19%.

I'm guessing this is not what the writer intended to convey. I think the writer intends to convey that x is reduced to (x - 5%). (Concrete example: 20% is reduced to 15%.)

I can imagine that anyone who is already familiar with the subject would tend to automatically put the correct interpretation on the statement, even if it's not what the statement actually says. So please, experts, scrutinize that sentence carefully.

I'm not in medicine and don't know the data, so maybe my original reading of the statement was actually correct. However, if you agree that there's a problem with the language, and you know enough about the data to be sure, please rewrite that part of the article to correct or disambiguate it.

MarkAb (talk) 19:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stent versus endarterectomy

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/358/15/1572 data are pretty good for stenting in high-risk patients. JFW | T@lk 10:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Screening

USPSTF recommends against. doi:10.7326/M14-1333 JFW | T@lk 19:36, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stenting vs surgery

Carotid artery stenting versus carotid endarterectomy for the treatment of carotid artery stenosis is a controversial topic and is the subject of a "turf war" between several medical specialties. The section should reflect broad consensus, not the results of a single trial (such as the CREST trial). BakerStMD 15:23, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]