ArticleJournal of ultrasound2026
Carotid stenosis reporting in Doppler ultrasound: why specifying NASCET or ECST criteria matters-an outpatient study.
Article in Journal of ultrasound, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeCarotid artery stenosis represents a major risk factor for ischemic stroke, and Doppler ultrasound is widely used as the first-line imaging modality for its assessment. The degree of stenosis is commonly expressed as a percentage and can be calculated according to different methods, most notably the North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial (NASCET) and the European Carotid Surgery Trial (ECST) criteria. However, in routine clinical practice, the classification system used to determine the percentage of stenosis is not always specified in the ultrasound report. These methods consider different reference diameters, making values non-comparable and potentially misleading for clinical decisions.
methodsIn this study, we reviewed 1,400 patients evaluated in the Doppler ultrasound outpatient clinic of Internal Medicine at Poma Hospital, Mantova, Italy. All examinations were performed during routine clinical activity over four years by a physician tutor of the Italian Society of Medical and Biological Ultrasonology (SIUMB). The patient population included individuals aged between 18 and 97 years.
resultsDuring follow-up evaluations, it was frequently observed that previous ultrasound reports indicated a percentage of carotid stenosis without specifying whether NASCET or ECST criteria had been used.
conclusionsOur experience highlights the importance of clearly stating the classification system used for stenosis grading in carotid Doppler reports. Standardized reporting may improve longitudinal comparison of examinations, facilitate clinical decision-making, and enhance communication among healthcare professionals involved in the management of carotid artery disease.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42862544What 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.