ArticleNeuroradiology2021
Evaluation of the interrater and intermethod agreement of the German multiparametric ultrasound criteria for the grading of internal carotid artery stenosis.
Article in Neuroradiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Three-dimensional, patient-specific simulation of cerebral blood flow velocities as a new approach for individualized stroke prevention and treatment.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2025Article
- Validity of Ultrasound for the Diagnosis of Arterial Thoracic Outlet Syndrome.EJVES vascular forum · 2024Article
- Validity and Reliability of Point-of-Care Ultrasound for Detecting Moderate- or High-Grade Carotid Atherosclerosis in an Outpatient Department.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe interdisciplinary German guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of internal carotid artery stenosis (ICAS) recommend a multiparametric approach for the sonographic grading of extracranial ICAS. The aim of this study is to evaluate the interrater and intermethod agreement of this elaborated sonographic approach with different angiographic modalities.
methodsPatients with extracranial ICAS were examined twice with colour-coded duplex sonography (CDS) by two experienced vascular neurologists. Each of the ten criteria and the resulting stenotic value were assessed. Grading of ICAS based on the multiparametric ultrasound criteria was compared with different angiography modalities (magnetic resonance angiography (MRA), computed tomography angiography (CTA), digital subtraction angiography (DSA)).
resultsSeventy-four consecutive patients with 91 extracranial ICAS were recruited from our stroke unit and neurovascular outpatient clinic. Interrater agreement for each single ultrasound criterion ranged from moderate to excellent (for the peak systolic velocity). Concerning the absolute stenotic value of ICAS, an excellent agreement between both ultrasound examiners with an ICC of 0.91 (range 0.87-0.94; p < 0.001) was found. In 96% of ICAS, the difference between the stenotic values was ≤ 10%. Intermethod agreements between CDS and DSA, CTA, and MRA were also good for both sonographers.
conclusionStrictly adhering to the multiparametric "DEGUM ultrasound criteria", we found an excellent interrater agreement and a good intermethod agreement compared with angiography for the sonographic grading of extracranial ICAS. Thus, multiparametric CDS is in particular suitable for the follow up of extracranial ICAS even when examinations are done by different sonographers.
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.