ArticleNeuroradiology2025
Rule-out and rule-in of carotid near-occlusion using color duplex ultrasound.
Article in Neuroradiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Carotid near-occlusion diagnostics and its consequences: A systematic review.European stroke journal · 2026Pooled it
- Duplex ultrasound in severe carotid stenosis: diagnostic performance for differentiating near-occlusion subtypes from conventional high-grade stenosis.Neuroradiology · 2026Article
- Carotid near-occlusion diagnostics and its consequences: A systematic review.European stroke journal · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeDiagnosing carotid near-occlusion (CNO) with colour duplex ultrasound (CDU) is challenging. We hypothesised that CNO is associated with a reduced distal internal carotid artery (ICA) velocity and aimed to assess if distal velocity is able to diagnose CNO accurately. If not, we aimed to develop CDU rule-out and rule-in criteria to diagnose CNO.
methodsThis is a prospective cross-sectional study in consecutive participants with suspected ≥ 50% carotid stenosis on CT angiography (CTA). CDU velocities in the common carotid artery, the stenosis and distal to the stenosis were examined. CTAs were assessed for CNO, serving as a reference test. If no CDU parameter was both sensitive and specific for CNO, rule-out (98% sensitive) and rule-in (99% specific) criteria were created.
resultsOf the 315 included participants with ≥ 50% stenosis, 190 (60%) were conventional ≥ 50% stenosis and 125 (40%) CNO. No CDU parameter was both sensitive and specific for CNO. The best exclusion criteria were stenosis end diastolic velocity (EDV) ≤ 63 cm/s and/or distal peak systolic velocity (PSV) > 23 cm/s, seen in 115 (38%) participants. The best rule-in criteria were stenosis EDV ≥ 280 cm/s and/or distal PSV ≤ 23 cm/s, seen in 35 (12%) participants. Of the remaining participants, 143 (47%) were uncertain (74 CNOs) and 9 (3%) were misdiagnosed as carotid occlusion (all CNOs).
conclusionsCDU alone cannot diagnose CNO but can rule in or rule out CNO in half of participants with ≥ 50% stenosis. These criteria are intended for inclusion in an algorithm, sorting cases needing further exams, such as CTA and/or phase-contrast magnetic resonance angiography.
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.