ArticleAnnals of translational medicine2020
Feasibility of evaluating the stenosis of intracranial segment in the vertebral artery using neck-brain integrated ultrasound: a comparison with computed tomography angiography and digital subtraction angiography.
Article in Annals of translational medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Vertebral Artery Hypoplasia and Posterior Circulation Vulnerability: A Systematic Review of Epidemiological, Hemodynamic, and Clinical Evidence.Neurology international · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCurrently, no clear diagnostic indicator of vertebral artery hypoplasia (VAH) or intracranial stenosis exists in clinic. This study aims to study the feasibility of neck-brain integrated ultrasound for evaluating stenosis of the intracranial segment in the vertebral artery by comparing with those of computed tomography angiography (CTA) and digital subtraction angiography (DSA).
methodsClinical data of 138 patients who presented to our hospital with dizziness and headache as the main symptoms between April 2018 and June 2019 were retrospectively analyzed. Patients were divided into observation group and unilateral VAH group. The diagnosing accuracy of ultrasound, CTA, and DAS, the vertebral artery diameter (VAD), blood flow, end diastolic velocity (EDV), peak systolic velocity (PSV) values, resistance indexes (RIs), and difference of RI were compared between the two groups. The sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of ultrasound hemodynamic indicators in assessing stenosis of the intracranial segment of the vertebral artery were calculated.
resultsThe accuracy rates of mild stenosis and non-stenosis with neck-brain integrated ultrasound were significantly different from those with CTA and DSA examination (P<0.05). The VAD, blood flow, EDV and PSV values of the affected side in the observation group were lower than those of the VAH side in the unilateral VAH group, while the RI and RI difference value were significantly higher than the unilateral VAH group (P<0.05). When the predicted boundary value was 2.084 mm (VAD), 56.41 mL/min (blood flow), 8.47 cm/s (EDV), 0.743 (RI), and 0.149 (difference of RI), the sensitivity and specificity were (86.43%, 49.45%), (88.67%, 47.42%), (80.47%, 68.71%), (82.71%, 84.66%), and (95.84%, 80.11%), respectively.
conclusionsNeck-brain integrated ultrasound is of great value as a noninvasive examination in the diagnosis of stenotic lesions of the internal cervical vertebral artery. VAD, EDV, blood flow, RI, and the difference in RI can be used as indicators to evaluate stenosis of the internal carotid segment of the vertebral artery and provide a reliable basis for the clinical diagnosis of posterior circulation ischemia.
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.