ArticleArtery research2017
Post-processing reproducibility of the structural characteristics of the common carotid artery in a Flemish population.
Article in Artery research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Blood pressure and vascular determinants of glomerular filtration rate decline in diabetic kidney disease.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2023Article
- Preclinical carotid atherosclerosis as an indicator of polyvascular disease: a narrative review.Annals of translational medicine · 2021Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionCommon carotid artery (CCA) intima-media thickness (IMT), lumen diameter, and maximum plaque thickness were assessed on ultrasound images. The objective of the study was to evaluate the intra- and inter-reader reproducibility of the measurements following a standardised protocol.
methodsTwo readers performed the off-line measurements on B-mode ultrasound images of the distal CCA, in a randomly selected subset (n = 60) from a Flemish population cohort (FLEMENGHO). We calculated the coefficient of variation, the interclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and reproducibility according to the Bland-Altman method.
resultsThe intra-reader bias for the measurements of left and right side CCA IMT were -0.003 ± 0.04 mm (p = 0.55) and 0.01 ± 0.04 mm (p = 0.03), respectively. The intra-reader bias of the lumen diameter was -0.04 ± 0.25 mm (p = 0.27) for the left and 0.02 ± 0.22 mm (p = 0.45) for the right side. The measurements for the maximum plaque thickness showed no intra-reader differences with bias 0.07 ± 0.2 mm (p = 0.26) for the left and -0.03 ± 0.2 mm (p = 0.55) for the right side. The inter-reader analysis showed good reproducibility for the left and right side CCA IMT with bias 0.004 ± 0.06 mm (p = 0.57) and -0.008 ± 0.05 mm (p = 0.19), respectively, but the lumen diameter measurements showed inter-reader differences, with bias 0.17 ± 0.27 mm (p < 0.0001) for the left and 0.10 ± 0.21 mm (p = 0.0006) for the right side. The inter-reader bias for the maximum plaque thickness were 0.07 ± 0.2 mm (p = 0.21) and -0.1 ± 0.4 mm (p = 0.26) for the left and right side, respectively.
conclusionThe results demonstrated a reliable reproducibility of carotid wall structural measurements, allowing for an adequate further analysis of the entire population cohort.
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.