ArticleEuropean stroke journal2024
Diagnostic separation of conventional ⩾50% carotid stenosis and near-occlusion with phase-contrast MRI.
Article in European stroke journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Carotid near-occlusion diagnostics and its consequences: A systematic review.European stroke journal · 2026Pooled it
- Risk of early stroke recurrence and procedural stroke or death in carotid near occlusion patients scheduled for carotid endarterectomy.Journal of neurology · 2026Article
- Carotid near-occlusion diagnostics and its consequences: A systematic review.European stroke journal · 2025Review
- Rule-out and rule-in of carotid near-occlusion using color duplex ultrasound.Neuroradiology · 2025Article
- The pitfalls and challenges in the diagnosis and treatment of patients with carotid near-occlusion: a narrative review.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2024Review
- Assessments of arterial and venous phase radiodensity does not improve carotid near-occlusion diagnostics.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Phase-contrast magnetic resonance imaging of intracranial and extracranial blood flow in carotid near-occlusion.Neuroradiology · 2024Article
- Quantifying Carotid Stenosis: History, Current Applications, Limitations, and Potential: How Imaging Is Changing the Scenario.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe aim of this study was to assess sensitivity, specificity and interrater reliability of phase-contrast MRI (PC-MRI) for diagnosing carotid near-occlusion. PATIENTS AND
methodsProspective cross-sectional study conducted between 2018 and 2021. We included participants with suspected 50%-100% carotid stenosis on at least one side, all were examined with CT angiography (CTA) and PC-MRI and both ICAs were analyzed. Degree of stenosis on CTA was the reference test. PC-MRI-based blood flow rates in extracranial ICA and intracranial cerebral arteries were assessed. ICA-cerebral blood flow (CBF) ratio was defined as ICA divided by sum of both ICAs and Basilar artery.
resultsWe included 136 participants. The ICAs were 102 < 50% stenosis, 88 conventional ⩾50% stenosis (31 with ⩾70%), 49 near-occlusion, 12 occlusions, 20 unclear cause of small distal ICA on CTA and one excluded. For separation of near-occlusion and conventional stenoses, ICA flow rate and ICA-CBF ratio had the highest area under the curve (AUC; 0.98-0.99) for near-occlusion. ICA-CBF ratio ⩽0.225 was 90% (45/49) sensitive and 99% (188/190) specific for near-occlusion. Inter-rater reliability for this threshold was excellent (kappa 0.98). Specificity was 94% (29/31) for cases with ⩾70% stenosis. PC-MRI had modest performance for separating <50% and conventional ⩾50% stenosis (highest AUC 0.74), and eight (16%) of near-occlusions were not distinguishable from occlusion (no visible flow).
conclusionICA-CBF ratio ⩽0.225 on PC-MRI is an accurate and reliable method to separate conventional ⩾50% stenosis and near-occlusion that is feasible for routine use. PC-MRI should be considered further as a potential standard method for near-occlusion detection, to be used side-by-side with established modalities as PC-MRI cannot separate other degrees of stenosis.
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.