Back to: Report Your Findings

Let’s start with an introduction that needs some work:

A 2007 systematic review of management strategies for ARAS concluded that the evidence did not support one treatment approach over another, and no defined set of clinical or intervention characteristics was convincingly associated with CVD, BP control, and kidney function (7, 8). Since then, 2 large trials—CORAL (Cardiovascular Outcomes in Renal Atherosclerotic Lesions) (9) and ASTRAL (Angioplasty and Stenting for Renal Artery Lesions) (10)—have been published, each calling into question the clinical value of invasive intervention for ARAS. Given the inconclusive prior review and new evidence, it is timely to reevaluate the comparative benefits and harms of strategies for management of patients with ARAS and to identify factors that may predict which patients are most likely to benefit from each intervention.

Do you have any idea what this article is about? We will use a four part introduction to provide some context and structure starting with a background statement.