Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33936978›Full record

ArticleQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery2021

Assessment of neovascularization of carotid artery atherosclerotic plaques using superb microvascular imaging: a comparison with contrast-enhanced ultrasound imaging and histology.

Qi Meng, Xia Xie, Li Li, Chao Jiang, Keqiang Zhao, Zhiyong Bai, Zhuozhao Zheng, Yu Yang, Yan Yu, Huabin Zhang and 1 more

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Recent advances in vascular ultrasound imaging technology and their clinical implications.Diagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey) · 2026
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Qi MengDepartment of Ultrasound, Beijing Tsinghua Changgung Hospital, School of Clinical Medicine, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China.
Xia XieDepartment of Ultrasound, Beijing Tsinghua Changgung Hospital, School of Clinical Medicine, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China.
Li LiDepartment of Pathology, Beijing Tsinghua Changgung Hospital, School of Clinical Medicine, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China.
Chao JiangDepartment of Vascular Surgery, Beijing Tsinghua Changgung Hospital, School of Clinical Medicine, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China.
Keqiang ZhaoDepartment of Vascular Surgery, Beijing Tsinghua Changgung Hospital, School of Clinical Medicine, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China.
Zhiyong BaiDepartment of Ultrasound, Beijing Tsinghua Changgung Hospital, School of Clinical Medicine, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China.
Zhuozhao ZhengDepartment of Radiology, Beijing Tsinghua Changgung Hospital, School of Clinical Medicine, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China.
Yu YangDepartment of Vascular Surgery, Beijing Tsinghua Changgung Hospital, School of Clinical Medicine, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China.
Yan YuDepartment of Pathology, Beijing Tsinghua Changgung Hospital, School of Clinical Medicine, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China.
Huabin ZhangDepartment of Ultrasound, Beijing Tsinghua Changgung Hospital, School of Clinical Medicine, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China.
Xihai ZhaoCenter for Biomedical Imaging Research, Department of Biomedical Engineering, Tsinghua University School of Medicine, Beijing, China.
Tsinghua University · CNBeijing Tsinghua Chang Gung Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis study aimed to investigate the usefulness of superb microvascular imaging (SMI), a novel non-contrast-enhanced ultrasound technique, in characterizing neovessels within carotid atherosclerotic plaques through comparison with contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) and histology.

methodsPatients with carotid plaque were recruited and underwent SMI and CEUS ultrasound imaging of the carotid arteries. The maximum plaque thickness, length, and stenosis of each plaque were measured. Grade of the neovessels was determined by SMI and CEUS, respectively. Grade 0 was defined as no blood flow signal/microbubbles within plaques; grade 1 was defined as moderate blood flow signals/microbubbles confined to the shoulder and/or adventitial side of the plaque; and grade 2 was defined as extensive intraplaque signals/microbubbles. Patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis (stenosis ≥50%) or asymptomatic carotid stenosis (stenosis ≥70%) underwent endarterectomy, and plaque specimens were subjected to immunohistochemical analysis of CD31 expression. The neovessels were quantified by histology. The agreement of SMI with CEUS and histology in characterizing neovessels was analyzed using weighted Kappa statistic and Spearman's correlation analyses.

resultsSeventy-eight patients (mean age: 67.3±8.9 years old, 63 males) were recruited. Of these patients, 52 (66.7%) had a unilateral plaque and 26 (33.3%) had bilateral plaques in the carotid arteries. For the 104 carotid plaques detected, the mean plaque thickness and length were 4.3±1.1 and 18.8±6.6 mm, respectively. The prevalence of <50%, 50-69%, and ≥70% stenosis was 43.3%, 24.0%, and 32.7%, respectively. Excellent agreement was found between SMI and CEUS (κ=0.825 at the plaque level; κ=0.820 at the patient level) in evaluating the neovessel grade within the carotid plaques. Of the 25 patients who underwent carotid endarterectomy, a strong correlation (r=0.660, P<0.001) was found between SMI and histology in the evaluation of intraplaque neovessels. SMI had excellent scan-rescan (κ=0.857), intra-reader (κ=0.810), and inter-reader (κ=0.754) agreement in the assessment of intraplaque neovessels.

conclusionsThe SMI technique is capable of reliably characterizing neovessels within carotid atherosclerotic plaques and demonstrates good to excellent agreement with histology and CEUS.

Indexed as

atherosclerosisCarotid arteriesneovascularizationultrasonography

Identifiers

PMID33936978
PMCPMC8047364
OpenAlexW3133703942

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.