ArticleBMC medical imaging2022
Comparison of time consumption and success rate between CT angiography- and CT perfusion- based imaging assessment strategy for the patients with acute ischemic stroke.
Article in BMC medical imaging, 2022. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Post-thrombolysis computed tomography angiography and perfusion features associated with an unfavorable early neurological response: a single-center retrospective study in a clinically selected anterior-circulation cohort.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2026Article
- Comparison of AI-assisted quantitative collateral score and visual collateral score in stroke thrombectomy triage.Neuroradiology · 2026Article
- Estimation of Acute Infarct Core and Hypoperfused Region from Baseline Noncontrast Computed Tomography and Computed Tomography Angiography Scans of Patients with Ischemic Stroke.Stroke (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2025Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOur study aimed to compare the time consumption and success rate between CTA- and CTP- based assessment strategy, and to clarify the risk factors associated with the CTP scan failure.
methodsClinical and radiological data of 437 consecutive AIS patients who underwent multiphase CTA or CTP for pre-treatment evaluation were retrospectively enrolled (CTA group, n = 302; CTP group, n = 135). Time consumption and success rate of CTA- and CTP- based assessment strategy were compared using Mann-Whitney U test and Chi-Squared Test. Univariate analysis and receiver operating curve analysis were used to clarify the risk factors, and their performance in predicting the CTP scan failure.
resultsTime consumption of CTP scan and reconstruction was significantly longer than that of CTA [775 s vs 263.5 s, P < 0.001]. CTP scan showed significantly higher failure rate than CTA (11% vs 1%, P < 0.001). Severe motion was the most common cause of CTP failure (n = 12, 80%). Baseline National Institute of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score in CTP failure group was significantly higher than that in CTP success group [17 vs 13, P = 0.007]. Baseline NIHSS score of 11 was the optimal threshold value to predict CTP failure with an area under the curve of 0.715, a sensitivity of 86.7%, and a specificity of 45.0%.
conclusionsCTP- based strategy showed longer time consumption and higher failure rate than CTA- based strategy. High baseline NIHSS score was significantly associated with CTP scan failure in AIS patients.
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.