ArticleJournal of digital imaging2012
Evaluation of computer-assisted quantification of carotid artery stenosis.
Article in Journal of digital imaging, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Systematic review of preoperative carotid duplex ultrasound compared with computed tomography carotid angiography for carotid endarterectomy.Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England · 2019Pooled it
- CT Angiography Manual Multiplanar Vessel Diameter Measurement vs. Semiautomated Perpendicular Area Minimal Caliber Computation of Internal Carotid Artery Stenosis.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2021Article
- Carotid Artery Plaque Identification and Display System (MRI-CAPIDS) Using Opensource Tools.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
- Overcoming calcium blooming and improving the quantification accuracy of percent area luminal stenosis by material decomposition of multi-energy computed tomography datasets.Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.) · 2020Article
- Diagnostic Accuracy of 4 Commercially Available Semiautomatic Packages for Carotid Artery Stenosis Measurement on CTA.AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology · 2015Article
- Coronary artery center-line extraction using second order local features.Computational and mathematical methods in medicine · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the influence of advanced software assistance on the assessment of carotid artery stenosis; particularly, the inter-observer variability of readers with different level of experience is to be investigated. Forty patients with suspected carotid artery stenosis received head and neck dual-energy CT angiography as part of their pre-interventional workup. Four blinded readers with different levels of experience performed standard imaging interpretation. At least 1 day later, they performed quantification using an advanced vessel analysis software including automatic dual-energy bone and hard plaque removal, automatic and semiautomatic vessel segmentation, as well as creation of curved planar reformation. Results were evaluated for the reproducibility of stenosis quantification of different readers by calculating the kappa and correlation values. Consensus reading of the two most experienced readers was used as the standard of reference. For standard imaging interpretation, experienced readers reached very good (k = 0.85) and good (k = 0.78) inter-observer variability. Inexperienced readers achieved moderate (k = 0.6) and fair (k = 0.24) results. Sensitivity values 80%, 91%, 83%, 77% and specificity values 100%, 84%, 82%, 53% were achieved for significant area stenosis >70%. For grading using advanced vessel analysis software, all readers achieved good inter-observer variability (k = 0.77, 0.72, 0.71, and 0.77). Specificity values of 97%, 95%, 95%, 93% and sensitivity values of 84%, 78%, 86%, 92% were achieved. In conclusion, when supported by advanced vessel analysis software, experienced readers are able to achieve good reproducibility. Even inexperienced readers are able to achieve good results in the assessment of carotid artery stenosis when using advanced vessel analysis software.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.