Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23458826›Full record

ArticleJournal of ultrasound2012

Sonographic characteristics of carotid artery plaques: Implications for follow-up planning?

A Casadei, M Floreani, R Catalini, C Serra, A P Assanti, P Conci

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of ultrasound, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 36% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Predictor Role ofMedicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Genes · 2020
    Observational
  11. Observational
  12. Immunization with the GlyTheranostics · 2020
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Observational
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

A CasadeiSpecialist Outpatient Clinic for Clinical and Vascular Sonography, Bolzano Healh District, Bolzano, Italy.
M Floreani
R Catalini
C Serra
A P Assanti
P Conci
Ospedale di Bolzano · ITNaples Community Hospital Healthcare System · USOspedali Riuniti di Ancona · ITUniversity of Bologna · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

unlabelledThe aim of our study was to analyze the ultrasound characteristics of carotid plaques in an outpatient population and to determine their implications for planning the ultrasound follow-up. MATERIALS AND

methodsWe studied 747 consecutive outpatients (397 [53%] of whom were women) who underwent color Doppler sonography of the carotid arteries. Most of the patients presented multiple cardiovascular risk factors or were being followed-up for carotid artery stenosis.

resultsStenosis ranging from 1% to 69% was observed at the level of the right internal carotid arteries (ICA) in 419 (56.1%) of the 747 patients and in the left ICA in 408 of 747 (54.5%). One hundred twenty-four (29.5%) of the 419 RICA plaques and 77 (18.8%) of the 408 LICA plaques were classified as type 1 or type 2 according to the modified Gray-Weale classification.

conclusionsType 1 and type 2 plaques, which are referred to as "vulnerable plaques," were found in 160 (21.4%) of the 747 patients we examined. These patients should be subjected to closer ultrasound follow-up, even if they have only moderate carotid artery stenosis.

Indexed as

Carotid arteries (CA)Carotid plaquesColor-Doppler ultrasound (CDUS)Echolucent plaquesIntima-media thickness (IMT)

Identifiers

PMID23458826
PMCPMC3565685
OpenAlexW2065332353

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.