ArticleFrontiers in neurology2022
The Value of Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound in the Evaluation of Carotid Web.
Article in Frontiers in neurology, 2022. 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, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Carotid web ultrasonography and its associations with ischemic stroke: a preliminary observational study.BMC neurology · 2025Observational
- Carotid Web Case Report: A Carotid Bifurcation Disorder Causing Stroke Without Localised Significant Stenosis.Australasian journal of ultrasound in medicine · 2025Article
- Intima-Media Thickening with Carotid Webs: A Case Report of a Potentially High-Risk Association.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- The carotid web: Current research status and imaging features.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: The purpose of this study was to investigate whether contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) is more advantageous than conventional ultrasound in the diagnosis of carotid web (CaW) and to compare the clinical characteristics of patients in different age groups. Methods: Seventeen patients admitted to the hospital from October 2019 to December 2021 were included in our study. Patients were initially diagnosed with CaW using digital subtraction angiography (DSA), and conventional ultrasound and CEUS were completed. Baseline patient data were analyzed and compared between the <60 years old CaW group and the ≥60 years old CaW group to explore the differences between the two groups. Then, comparing the accuracy of conventional ultrasound and CEUS. Results: A total of 17 CaW patients participated in this study, including 4 female patients (23.5%) and 13 male patients (76.5%), with an average age of 59.41 (±10.86) years. There were 9 patients (52.9%) with left CaW and 8 patients (47.1%) with right CaW. Acute ischemic stroke (AIS) occurred in 14 patients (82.4%). Thrombosis occurred in five of 17 patients (29.4%). There was a significant statistical difference about the thrombosis between the <60 years old CaW group and the ≥60 years old CaW group [<60 years group: 0 (0%), ≥60 years group: 5 (62.5%), Conclusions: CEUS may have a higher diagnostic accuracy for CaW with thrombosis, and it has a higher clinical application prospect.
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.