ArticleAJNR. American journal of neuroradiology2015
Diagnostic Accuracy of 4 Commercially Available Semiautomatic Packages for Carotid Artery Stenosis Measurement on CTA.
Article in AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Agreement across different measurements for internal carotid artery stenosis in patients with TIA or stroke in the CONVINCE trial.European radiology · 2026Trial
- Consensus machine learning identifies cell death gene signature for carotid artery stenosis diagnosis.iScience · 2026Article
- 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
- Mimicking aneurysm in a patient with chronic occlusion of the left middle cerebral artery.World journal of clinical cases · 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
- Comparability of semiautomatic tortuosity measurements in the carotid artery.Neuroradiology · 2019Article
- Carotid near-occlusion frequently has high peak systolic velocity on Doppler ultrasound.Neuroradiology · 2018Article
- Medical Image Data and Datasets in the Era of Machine Learning-Whitepaper from the 2016 C-MIMI Meeting Dataset Session.Journal of digital imaging · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and purposeSemiautomatic measurement of ICA stenosis potentially increases observer reproducibility. In this study, we assessed the diagnostic accuracy and interobserver reproducibility of a commercially available semiautomatic ICA stenosis measurement on CTA and estimated the agreement among different software packages. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe analyzed 141 arteries from 90 patients with TIA or ischemic stroke. Manual stenosis measurements were performed by 2 neuroradiologists. Semiautomatic measurements by using 4 methods (3mensio and comparable software from Philips, TeraRecon, and Siemens) were performed by 2 observers. Diagnostic accuracy was estimated by comparing semiautomatic with manual measurements. Interobserver reproducibility and agreement between different packages was assessed by calculation of the intraclass correlation coefficient and Bland-Altman 95% limits of agreement. False-negative classifications were retrospectively inspected by a neuroradiologist.
resultsThere was no significant difference in the diagnostic performance of the 4 semiautomatic methods. The sensitivity for detecting ≥50% and ≥70% degree of stenosis was between 76% and 82% and 46% and 62%, respectively. Specificity and overall diagnostic accuracy were between 92% and 97% and 85% and 90%, respectively. The interobserver intraclass correlation coefficient was between 0.83 and 0.96 for semiautomatic measurements and 0.81 for manual measurement. The limits of agreement between each pair of semiautomatic packages ranged from -18%-24% to -33%-31%. False-negative classifications were caused by ulcerative plaques and observer variation in stenosis and reference measurements.
conclusionsSemiautomatic methods have a low-to-good sensitivity and a good specificity and overall diagnostic accuracy. The high interobserver reproducibility makes semiautomatic stenosis measurement valuable for clinical practice, but semiautomatic measurements should be checked by an experienced radiologist.
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.