Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26417185›Full record

ArticleThe International journal of angiology : official publication of the International College of Angiology, Inc2015

Multimodality Imaging of Carotid Stenosis.

Theodor Adla, Radka Adlova

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The International journal of angiology : official publication of the International College of Angiology, Inc, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

30 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

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

2 authors.

Theodor AdlaDepartment of Radiology, 2nd Faculty of Medicine, Charles University in Prague and Motol University Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic.
Radka AdlovaComplex Cardiovascular Centre for Adult Patients, Cardiology Clinic of the 2nd Faculty of Medicine, Charles University in Prague and Motol University Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Four diagnostic modalities are used to image the following internal carotid artery: digital subtraction angiography (DSA), duplex ultrasound (DUS), computed tomography angiography (CTA), and magnetic resonance angiography (MRA). The aim of this article is to describe the potentials of these techniques and to discuss their advantages and disadvantages. Invasive DSA is still considered the gold standard and is an indivisible part of the carotid stenting procedure. DUS is an inexpensive but operator-dependent tool with limited visibility of the carotid artery course. Conversely, CTA and MRA allow assessment of the carotid artery from the aortic arch to intracranial parts. The disadvantages of CTA are radiation and iodine contrast medium administration. MRA is without radiation but contrast-enhanced MRA is more accurate than noncontrast MRA. The choice of methods depends on the clinical indications and the availability of methods in individual centers. However, the general approach to patient with suspected carotid artery stenosis is to first perform DUS and then other noninvasive methods such as CTA, MRA, or transcranial Doppler US.

Indexed as

carotid artery stenosiscomputed tomography angiographydigital subtraction angiographyduplex ultrasoundmagnetic resonance angiography

Identifiers

PMID26417185
PMCPMC4572013

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.