ArticleCurrent treatment options in cardiovascular medicine2012
Use of carotid intima-media thickness regression to guide therapy and management of cardiac risks.
Article in Current treatment options in cardiovascular medicine, 2012. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
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
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
opinion statementAlthough carotid intima-media thickness (IMT) has been broadly used as a tool to evaluate cardiovascular risk, its role as a surrogate endpoint is still debated. The main issue is the fact that no study has ever been powered to show a relationship between changes in carotid IMT during follow-up and cardiovascular events. A meta-analysis of existing clinical studies was performed to investigate this relationship but it failed to demonstrate a predictive role of regression in carotid IMT for cardiovascular events. The reasons for the lack of a clear evidence for a predictive role of IMT progression are unknown but are likely multifactorial. Firstly, it may depend on the fact that this index is not a pure atherosclerosis index. Second, carotid atherosclerosis does not always reflect coronary atherosclerosis. Furthermore, methodologic problems related to intra- and interobserver variability make this index not adequately reproducible when tracking the progression of carotid atherosclerosis. A further meta-analysis based on individual patient data, instead of published data, has been planned to better address the predictive role of IMT. Lastly, in the future, the variability of ultrasound measurements of carotid IMT are likely to be reduced by further development of automatic calculation of this index by magnetic resonance imaging.
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.