ArticleEuropean radiology2013
Quantification of intracranial internal carotid artery calcification on brain unenhanced CT: evaluation of its feasibility and assessment of the reliability of visual grading scales.
Article in European radiology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Arterial Calcification and Its Association With Stroke: Implication of Risk, Prognosis, Treatment Response, and Prevention.Frontiers in cellular neuroscience · 2022Review
- Automated Segmentation and Volume Measurement of Intracranial Internal Carotid Artery Calcification at Noncontrast CT.Radiology. Artificial intelligence · 2021Article
- Histology-Verified Intracranial Artery Calcification and Its Clinical Relevance With Cerebrovascular Disease.Frontiers in neurology · 2021Review
- Intracranial arterial calcifications as a prognostic factor for subsequent major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE).La Radiologia medica · 2018Article
- Intracranial Artery Calcification and Its Clinical Significance.Journal of clinical neurology (Seoul, Korea) · 2016Review
- Article
- Calcium at the carotid siphon as an indicator of internal carotid artery stenosis.European radiology · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesPrevious studies have evaluated intracranial internal carotid artery calcifications (ICACs) qualitatively using different visual grading scales, which could lead to inconsistent results. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of ICAC volume measurement and to correlate the volume with visual grading scales.
methodsWe included 49 patients (>50 years) who underwent unenhanced cranial CT. Two observers evaluated four visual grading scales and measured ICAC volumes semi-automatically, and interobserver agreements were assessed. Differences in ICAC volume between visual grades of each scale were tested. The relationship between the visual grading and volume was assessed.
resultsInterobserver agreements ranged from 0.841 to 0.901 for visual grading and 0.997 for volume measurement. Mean volumes were not significantly different between the visual grades (P > 0.05) except when comparing grade 4 with the other grades. The grades of each visual grading correlated well with ICAC volumes (Spearman's ρ = 0.849-0.881, P < 0.001). The relationship between the visual grades and volume was described by a quadratic model (R (2), 0.31-0.50, P < 0.01).
conclusionsICAC volume measurement is feasible and reproducible, whereas visual grades poorly reflect the actual volume; therefore, volume measurement may be warranted for future research.
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.