ArticleAorta (Stamford, Conn.)2020
Aortic Thickness: A Forgotten Paradigm in Risk Stratification of Aortic Disease.
Article in Aorta (Stamford, Conn.), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Low-Dose CT Quality Assurance at Scale: Automated Detection of Overscanning, Underscanning, and Image Noise.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Evidence in Clinical Studies for the Role of Wall Thickness in Ascending Thoracic Aortic Aneurysms: A Scoping Review.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Apoptotic Cell Death in Bicuspid-Aortic-Valve-Associated Aortopathy.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Article
- The effect of terminal impedance on aortic morphology and hemodynamics: anFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 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
3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed at risk-stratifying aortic dilatation using aortic wall thickness (AWT) and comparing methods of AWT assessment.
methodsDemographic, epidemiological, and perioperative data on 72 consecutive aortic surgeries (age = 62 years[standard deviation (SD) = 12] years) performed by a single surgeon were collected from hospital database. Aortic thickness was measured on computed tomography scans, as well as intraoperatively in four quadrants, at the level of aortic sinuses, as well as midascending aorta, using calipers. Aortic wall stress was calculated using standard mathematical formulae.
resultsThe ascending aorta was 48.2 (SD = 8) mm and the mean thickness at ascending aorta level was 1.9 (SD = 0.3) mm. There was congruence between imaging and intraoperative measurements of thickness, as well as between the radiologist and surgeon. Preoperatively, 16 patients had multiple imaging studies showing an average rate of growth of 1.2 mm per year without significant difference in thickness. The wider the aorta, the thinner was the lateral or convex wall. Aortic stenosis (
conclusionAortic thickness can be measured preoperatively and easily confirmed intraoperatively. Risk stratification based on both aortic thickness and diameter (stress calculations) would better predict acute aortic events in dilated aortas and define aortic resection criteria more objectively.
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.