ArticleAJNR. American journal of neuroradiology2012
Performance of semiautomatic assessment of carotid artery stenosis on CT angiography: clarification of differences with manual assessment.
Article in AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- 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
- Stent retrievers in acute ischemic stroke: complications and failures during the perioperative period.AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology · 2014Trial
- AI-Based Automated Quantification of Arterial Stenosis in Head and Neck CT Angiography: A Comparison with Manual Measurements from Digital Subtraction Angiography and CT Angiography.Clinical neuroradiology · 2025Article
- 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
- Feasibility of assessment of conjunctival microvascular hemodynamics in unilateral ischemic stroke.Microvascular research · 2015Article
- Imaging for approach selection of TAVI: assessment of the aorto-iliac tract diameter by computed tomography-angiography versus projection angiography.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2014Article
- Carotid stenosis assessment with multi-detector CT angiography: comparison between manual and automatic segmentation methods.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2013Article
- Semi-automatic quantitative measurements of intracranial internal carotid artery stenosis and calcification using CT angiography.Neuroradiology · 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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and purposeSemiautomated methods for ICA stenosis measurements have the potential to reduce interobserver variability and to speed up its analysis. In this study, we estimate the precision and accuracy of a semiautomated measurement for carotid artery stenosis degree and identify and explain differences compared with the manual method. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn this retrospective study involving 90 patients, 2 observers determined the stenosis degree twice, with both the semiautomated and the manual method. Intra- and interobserver correlations were calculated for both methods. The accuracy was estimated by comparing average semiautomated with manual measurements. The semiautomated stenosis calculations were performed using either the minimal or maximal intersection at the reference site. Individual cases with large differences in measurement were retrospectively inspected by 3 observers.
resultsIntra- (R = 0.93, 0.96) and interobserver (R = 0.98) correlations for the semiautomated method were excellent and exceeded the manual performance correlations (R = 0.87, 0.86). The semiautomated measurements correlated well with the manual measurements (R = 0.87), with high specificity of 96% and lower sensitivity of 63%. Large differences were caused by misinterpretations of the semiautomated method associated with calcified plaques, resulting in overestimations of the minimal diameter, underestimation of stenosis degree, and incorrect centerlines. The effect of using the minimal diameter at the reference position resulted in a small, but significant, underestimation of the stenosis degree by the semiautomated method.
conclusionsThe semiautomated method showed an excellent reproducibility and good correlation with manual measurements with a high specificity and lower sensitivity for detecting a significant stenosis. Erroneous semiautomatic stenosis measurements were associated with the presence of calcium.
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.