SynthesisFrontiers in neurology2025
Predictive value of contrast-enhanced carotid ultrasound features for stroke risk: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in neurology, 2025. 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.
- Multimodal ultrasound and computed tomography imaging may improve the discrimination between symptomatic and asymptomatic patients with carotid stenosis.American heart journal plus : cardiology research and practice · 2026Article
- Machine learning-based classification of carotid plaques via ultrasound: a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic performance.International journal of emergency medicine · 2025Review
- Retrospective study on the association between carotid plaque stability assessed by ultrasound imaging features and stroke risk.Frontiers in neurology · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To elucidate the contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) features of carotid artery plaques in patients who have experienced an ischemic stroke (IS). Methods: A computerized search was conducted in databases such as Pub-Med, EMSCO, and Ovid to identify studies reporting CEUS findings of carotid artery plaques. Patients were categorized as IS and non-IS based on clinical and radiological diagnosis, and the quantitative and semi-quantitative CEUS data were analyzed for differences between the two groups. Results: After the computerized search, a total of 13 eligible studies, comprising 3,092 participants (1,953 with stroke), were included for analysis. IS patients exhibited significantly higher plaque enhancement intensity versus control group (SMD = 0.71, 95% CI: 0.32, 1.11). The positive rate of plaque enhancement within the plaques was significantly higher in IS patients versus non-IS patients (OR = 3.25, 95% CI: 1.86, 5.68). The sensitivity of hyperintense lesion-based diagnosis of stroke was 0.68 (95% CI: 0.54, 0.80), and the specificity was 0.61 (95% CI: 0.47, 0.73), with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.697. Conclusion: There are significant differences in CEUS characteristics of carotid artery plaques between IS and non-IS patients. IS patients display markedly augmented plaque enhancement intensity and a higher rate of positive enhancement compared to non-stroke individuals. These noteworthy findings have critical implications in enhancing the accuracy of IS diagnosis and improving the stratification of stroke risk for patients. Systematic review registration: This study is registered with the International Platform of Registered Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Protocols (INPLASY), 202540006.
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.