Evidence mapPaperPMID 39202195Full record

ReviewDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2024

Imaging of Carotid Stenosis: Where Are We Standing? Comparison of Multiparametric Ultrasound, CT Angiography, and MRI Angiography, with Recent Developments.

Emanuele David, Hektor Grazhdani, Lorenzo Aliotta, Livio Maria Gavazzi, Pietro Valerio Foti, Stefano Palmucci, Corrado Inì, Francesco Tiralongo, Davide Castiglione, Maurizio Renda and 8 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
field-weighted citation impact
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

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Observational
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
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

18 authors.

Emanuele DavidDepartment of Medical Surgical Sciences and Advanced Technologies "GF Ingrassia", University Hospital Policlinic "G. Rodolico-San Marco", 95125 Catania, Italy.
Hektor GrazhdaniKlinika Dani, ENI nr 13, 1010 Tiranë, Albania.
Lorenzo AliottaDepartment of Medical Surgical Sciences and Advanced Technologies "GF Ingrassia", University Hospital Policlinic "G. Rodolico-San Marco", 95125 Catania, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-9331-3441
Livio Maria GavazziDepartment of Medical Surgical Sciences and Advanced Technologies "GF Ingrassia", University Hospital Policlinic "G. Rodolico-San Marco", 95125 Catania, Italy.ORCID 0009-0008-9102-074X
Pietro Valerio FotiDepartment of Medical Surgical Sciences and Advanced Technologies "GF Ingrassia", University Hospital Policlinic "G. Rodolico-San Marco", 95125 Catania, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-0918-0103
Stefano PalmucciDepartment of Medical Surgical Sciences and Advanced Technologies "GF Ingrassia", University Hospital Policlinic "G. Rodolico-San Marco", 95125 Catania, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-7196-2974
Corrado InìDepartment of Medical Surgical Sciences and Advanced Technologies "GF Ingrassia", University Hospital Policlinic "G. Rodolico-San Marco", 95125 Catania, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-7529-2680
Francesco TiralongoDepartment of Medical Surgical Sciences and Advanced Technologies "GF Ingrassia", University Hospital Policlinic "G. Rodolico-San Marco", 95125 Catania, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-9637-1970
Davide CastiglioneDepartment of Medical Surgical Sciences and Advanced Technologies "GF Ingrassia", University Hospital Policlinic "G. Rodolico-San Marco", 95125 Catania, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-1542-1073
Maurizio RendaDepartment of Radiological Sciences, Oncology and Pathology, Policlinico Umberto I, Sapienza University of Rome, 00161 Rome, Italy.
Patrizia PaciniDepartment of Radiological Sciences, Oncology and Pathology, Policlinico Umberto I, Sapienza University of Rome, 00161 Rome, Italy.
Chiara Di BellaDepartment of Radiological Sciences, Oncology and Pathology, Policlinico Umberto I, Sapienza University of Rome, 00161 Rome, Italy.
Carmen SolitoDepartment of Radiological Sciences, Oncology and Pathology, Policlinico Umberto I, Sapienza University of Rome, 00161 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0009-0008-9643-7202
Silvia GigliDepartment of Diagnostic Imaging, Sandro Pertini Hospital, Via dei Monti Tiburtini, 385, 00157 Rome, Italy.
Alessandro FazioDepartment of Medical Surgical Sciences and Advanced Technologies "GF Ingrassia", University Hospital Policlinic "G. Rodolico-San Marco", 95125 Catania, Italy.
Rita BellaDepartment of Medical Surgical Sciences and Advanced Technologies "GF Ingrassia", University Hospital Policlinic "G. Rodolico-San Marco", 95125 Catania, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-8332-6863
Antonio BasileDepartment of Medical Surgical Sciences and Advanced Technologies "GF Ingrassia", University Hospital Policlinic "G. Rodolico-San Marco", 95125 Catania, Italy.
Vito CantisaniDepartment of Radiological Sciences, Oncology and Pathology, Policlinico Umberto I, Sapienza University of Rome, 00161 Rome, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Atherosclerotic disease of the carotid arteries is a crucial risk factor in predicting the likelihood of future stroke events. In addition, emerging studies suggest that carotid stenosis may also be an indicator of plaque load on coronary arteries and thus have a correlation with the risk of acute cardiovascular events. Furthermore, although in symptomatic patients the degree of stenosis is the main morphological parameter studied, recent evidence suggests, especially in asymptomatic patients, that plaque vulnerability should also be evaluated as an emerging and significant imaging parameter. The reference diagnostic methods for the evaluation of carotid stenosis are currently ultrasonography, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and computed tomography angiography (CTA). In addition, other more invasive methods such as 123I-metaiodobenzylguanidine (MIBG) scintigraphy and PET-CT, as well as digital subtraction angiography, can be used. Each method has advantages and disadvantages, and there is often some confusion in their use. For example, the usefulness of MRI is often underestimated. In addition, implementations for each method have been developed over the years and are already enabling a significant increase in diagnostic accuracy. The purpose of our study is to make an in-depth analysis of all the methods in use and in particular their role in the diagnostic procedure of carotid stenosis, also discussing new technologies.

Indexed as

carotid stenosiscomputed tomography angiographymagnetic resonance imagingmultiparametric ultrasoundnew technologies

Identifiers

PMID39202195
PMCPMC11352936

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.