ArticleQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery2024
Semi-automatic computed tomography angiography quantification assessment is an alternative method to digital subtraction angiography in intracranial stenosis: a multicenter study.
Article in Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The recent randomized controlled trials studying intracranial atherosclerotic stenosis (ICAS) have used digital subtraction angiography (DSA) to quantify stenosis and enroll patients. However, some disadvantages of DSA such as invasive features, contrast agent overuse, and X-ray radiation overexposure, were not considered in these studies. This study aimed to explore whether computed tomography angiography (CTA) with semi-automatic analysis could be an alternative method to DSA in quantifying the absolute stenotic degree in clinical trials. Methods: Patients with 50-99% ICAS were consecutively screened, prospectively enrolled, and underwent CTA and DSA between March 2021 and December 2021 at 6 centers. This study was registered at www.chictr.org.cn (ChiCTR2100052925). The absolute stenotic degree of ICAS on CTA with semi-automatic analysis was calculated by several protocols using minimal/maximum/mean diameters of stenosis and reference site from a semi-automatic analysis software. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was used to evaluate the reliabilities of quantifying stenotic degree on CTA. The optimal protocol for quantifying ICAS on CTA was explored. The agreements of quantifying ICAS in calcified or non-calcified lesions and 50-69% or 70-99% stenosis on CTA and DSA were assessed. Results: A total of 191 participants (58.8±10.7 years; 148 men) with 202 lesions were enrolled. The optimal protocol for quantifying ICAS on CTA was calculated as (1 - the minimal diameter of stenosis/the mean diameter of reference) × 100% for its highest agreement with DSA [ICC, 0.955, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.944-0.966, P<0.001]. Among the 202 lesions, 80.2% (162/202) exhibited severe stenosis on DSA. The accuracy of CTA in detecting severe ICAS was excellent (sensitivity =95.1%, positive predictive value =98.1%). The agreements between DSA and CTA in non-calcified lesions (ICC, 0.960 Conclusions: CTA with semi-automatic analysis demonstrated an excellent agreement with DSA in quantifying ICAS, making it promising to replace DSA for the measurement of absolute stenotic degree in clinical trials.
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.