ArticleEuropean journal of radiology open2026
Perfusion stability in acute stroke: An observational study exploiting repeated CTP imaging.
Article in European journal of radiology open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Rethinking reperfusion metrics in endovascular stroke therapy: the limitations of mTICI and a path forward toward more meaningful outcomes.Neuroradiology · 2026Article
- Association of dynamic changes in ASPECTS perfusion scores derived from dual-time-point multi-post-labeling delay arterial spin labeling with 90-day functional outcome in acute ischemic stroke.American journal of translational research · 2026Article
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
Background and purpose: CT perfusion (CTP) is widely used to assess infarct core in acute stroke, yet real-world data on its reproducibility and temporal dynamics are limited. Materials and methods: We retrospectively identified patients with repeated CTP scans. Core and hypoperfusion volumes were quantified using standard thresholds (CBF <30 %, Tmax >6 s). Clinical and imaging data were reviewed to identify cases with disruptive events. We analyzed scan-to-scan differences in core volume, hypoperfusion volume, ASPECTS, and intensity metrics, including median Tmax (in hypoperfusion), CBF, and NCCT HU (in core), using Bland-Altman analysis and assessed their association with time between scans. Results: Among 32 patients with repeated CTP (26 with repeated NCCT), three were excluded due to disruptive events. In the remaining 29 cases, mean scan-to-scan differences for infarct core volume (4.8 ± 19.6 mL), hypoperfusion volume (3.86 ± 39.1 mL), and ASPECTS (-0.4 ± 1.6) indicated minimal systematic bias at the group level but substantial variability. Correlation coefficients were high (r = 0.90, 0.93, and 0.70, respectively; all p < 0.0001), and no statistically significant paired differences or association with scan interval were observed. Intensity-based metrics likewise showed minimal bias with lower variability (Tmax -0.3 ± 1.07 s; CBF -3.11 ± 7.3 %; NCCT HU -3.0 ± 4.9 %), high correlations (Tmax r = 0.87, CBF r = 0.91, NCCT HU r = 0.69; all p < 0.02), and no association with time between scans. Conclusions: Repeated CTP showed no systematic group-level scan-to-scan bias suggestive of infarct growth, while a substantial degree of variability was observed, with intensity-based metrics demonstrating lower variability than volume estimates. These findings support temporal consistency of perfusion-derived metrics at the group level and question the applicability of linear infarct growth rate (IGR) concepts to perfusion imaging, which primarily reflects a hemodynamic state rather than time-dependent tissue progression.
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.