Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26251250›Full record

ArticleStroke2015

Intracranial Carotid Calcification on Cranial Computed Tomography: Visual Scoring Methods, Semiautomated Scores, and Volume Measurements in Patients With Stroke.

Deepak Subedi, Umme Sara Zishan, Francesca Chappell, Maria-Lena Gregoriades, Cathie Sudlow, Robin Sellar, Joanna Wardlaw

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Stroke, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.1field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

32 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 51 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Deepak SubediFrom the Department of Clinical Radiology, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom (D.S., U.S.Z., M.-L.G.); Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom (F.C., C.S., R.S., J.W.); and Brain Research Imaging Centre, Scottish Imaging Network-A Platform for Scientific Excellence (SINAPSE) Collaboration, Edinburgh, United Kingdom (R.S., J.W.).
Umme Sara ZishanFrom the Department of Clinical Radiology, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom (D.S., U.S.Z., M.-L.G.); Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom (F.C., C.S., R.S., J.W.); and Brain Research Imaging Centre, Scottish Imaging Network-A Platform for Scientific Excellence (SINAPSE) Collaboration, Edinburgh, United Kingdom (R.S., J.W.).
Francesca ChappellFrom the Department of Clinical Radiology, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom (D.S., U.S.Z., M.-L.G.); Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom (F.C., C.S., R.S., J.W.); and Brain Research Imaging Centre, Scottish Imaging Network-A Platform for Scientific Excellence (SINAPSE) Collaboration, Edinburgh, United Kingdom (R.S., J.W.).
Maria-Lena GregoriadesFrom the Department of Clinical Radiology, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom (D.S., U.S.Z., M.-L.G.); Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom (F.C., C.S., R.S., J.W.); and Brain Research Imaging Centre, Scottish Imaging Network-A Platform for Scientific Excellence (SINAPSE) Collaboration, Edinburgh, United Kingdom (R.S., J.W.).
Cathie SudlowFrom the Department of Clinical Radiology, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom (D.S., U.S.Z., M.-L.G.); Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom (F.C., C.S., R.S., J.W.); and Brain Research Imaging Centre, Scottish Imaging Network-A Platform for Scientific Excellence (SINAPSE) Collaboration, Edinburgh, United Kingdom (R.S., J.W.).
Robin SellarFrom the Department of Clinical Radiology, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom (D.S., U.S.Z., M.-L.G.); Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom (F.C., C.S., R.S., J.W.); and Brain Research Imaging Centre, Scottish Imaging Network-A Platform for Scientific Excellence (SINAPSE) Collaboration, Edinburgh, United Kingdom (R.S., J.W.).
Joanna WardlawFrom the Department of Clinical Radiology, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom (D.S., U.S.Z., M.-L.G.); Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom (F.C., C.S., R.S., J.W.); and Brain Research Imaging Centre, Scottish Imaging Network-A Platform for Scientific Excellence (SINAPSE) Collaboration, Edinburgh, United Kingdom (R.S., J.W.). Joanna.Wardlaw@ed.ac.uk.
University of Edinburgh · GB

Funding

Wellcome Trust 063668
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

background and purposeIntracranial internal carotid artery calcification is associated with cerebrovascular risk factors and stroke, but few quantification methods are available. We tested the reliability of visual scoring, semiautomated Agatston score, and calcium volume measurement in patients with recent stroke.

methodsWe used scans from a prospective hospital stroke registry and included patients with anterior circulation ischemic stroke or transient ischemic stroke whose noncontrast cranial computed tomographic scans were available electronically. Two raters measured semiautomatic quantitative Agatston score, and calcium volume, and performed qualitative visual scoring using the original 4-point Woodcock score and a modified Woodcock score, where each image on which the internal carotid arteries appeared was scored and the slice scores summed.

resultsIntra- and interobserver coefficient of variations were 8.8% and 16.5% for Agatston, 8.8% and 15.5% for calcium volume, and 5.7% and 5.4% for the modified Woodcock visual score, respectively. The modified Woodcock visual score correlated strongly with both Agatston and calcium volume quantitative measures (both R(2)=0.84; P<0.0001); calcium volume increased by 0.47-mm/point increase in modified Woodcock visual score. Intracranial internal carotid artery calcification increased with age by all measures (eg, visual score, Spearman ρ=0.4; P=0.005).

conclusionsVisual scores correlate highly with quantitative intracranial internal carotid artery calcification measures, with excellent observer agreements. Visual intracranial internal carotid artery scores could be a rapid and practical method for epidemiological studies.

Indexed as

RegistriesSeverity of Illness IndexAgedAged, 80 and overCalcinosisCarotid Artery DiseasesCarotid Artery, InternalFemaleHumansIschemic Attack, TransientMaleMiddle AgedRadiographyReproducibility of ResultsStrokecalcification, physiologiccarotid artery, internalepidemiological studiesrisk factorsstroke

Identifiers

PMID26251250
PMCPMC4542564
OpenAlexW1953169493

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.