ArticleBMC cardiovascular disorders2019
Segment-specific association of carotid-intima-media thickness with cardiovascular risk factors - findings from the STAAB cohort study.
Article in BMC cardiovascular disorders, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Regional and demographic variations of Carotid artery Intima and Media Thickness (CIMT): A Systematic review and meta-analysis.PloS one · 2022Pooled it
- Multiple risk factors predict carotid intima media thickness in a 10 year prospective study.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Healthy lifestyle changes favourably affect common carotid intima-media thickness: the Healthy Lifestyle Community Programme (cohort 2).Journal of nutritional science · 2022Article
- Composite carotid intima-media thickness as a risk predictor of coronary heart disease in a selected population in Sri Lanka.PloS one · 2022Article
- Functional versus morphological assessment of vascular age in patients with coronary heart disease.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Effect of a 6-Month Controlled Lifestyle Intervention on Common Carotid Intima-Media Thickness.The journal of nutrition, health & aging · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe guideline recommendation to not measure carotid intima-media thickness (CIMT) for cardiovascular risk prediction is based on the assessment of just one single carotid segment. We evaluated whether there is a segment-specific association between different measurement locations of CIMT and cardiovascular risk factors.
methodsSubjects from the population-based STAAB cohort study comprising subjects aged 30 to 79 years of the general population from Würzburg, Germany, were investigated. CIMT was measured on the far wall of both sides in three different predefined locations: common carotid artery (CCA), bulb, and internal carotid artery (ICA). Diabetes, dyslipidemia, hypertension, smoking, and obesity were considered as risk factors. In multivariable logistic regression analysis, odds ratios of risk factors per location were estimated for the endpoint of individual age- and sex-adjusted 75th percentile of CIMT.
results2492 subjects were included in the analysis. Segment-specific CIMT was highest in the bulb, followed by CCA, and lowest in the ICA. Dyslipidemia, hypertension, and smoking were associated with CIMT, but not diabetes and obesity. We observed no relevant segment-specific association between the three different locations and risk factors, except for a possible interaction between smoking and ICA.
conclusionsAs no segment-specific association between cardiovascular risk factors and CIMT became evident, one simple measurement of one location may suffice to assess the cardiovascular risk of an individual.
Indexed as
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.