Trial reportEuropean radiology2026
Agreement across different measurements for internal carotid artery stenosis in patients with TIA or stroke in the CONVINCE trial.
Trial report in European radiology, 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
21 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesIn patients with atherosclerosis of the internal carotid artery (ICA), stenosis grading is commonly performed using the NASCET (North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial) method. Semi-automated software techniques for computed tomography angiography (CTA) offer alternative methods. We compared the NASCET method (based on the absolute minimal diameter) with three different stenosis measurements. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe analysed 519 baseline CTA scans from patients in the CONVINCE (Colchicine for prevention of vascular inflammation in Non-CardioEmbolic stroke) trial. For each ICA, we calculated stenosis with semi-automated imaging software using four methods: absolute minimal diameter (NASCET method, dia[min]), area, effective diameter from area (dia[area]), and effective diameter from perimeter (dia[perim]). We assessed agreement using a weighted kappa statistic (κ), intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Bland-Altman analysis.
resultsWe identified 579 atherosclerotic arteries in 360 patients. Within the clinically relevant 30-99% stenosis subgroup (195/579, 33.7%), absolute agreement between dia[min] and other methods was good (ICC values of 0.82, 0.87, and 0.72 for area, dia[area], and dia[perim]). Kappa's were 0.68 (95% CI 0.63-0.73), 0.66 (95% CI 0.60-0.73), and 0.49 (95% CI 0.40-0.58) for dia[min] vs. area, dia[area], and dia[perim]. Dia[min] underestimated stenosis by 6.4% (95% CI 4.7%-8.2%) compared to area and overestimated by 12.4% (95% CI 11.0%-13.7%) and 17.8% (95% CI 15.8%-19.9%) compared to dia[area] and dia[perim].
conclusionDifferent semi-automated methods for stenosis measurement showed fair to moderate agreement with both systematic over- and underestimation affecting stenosis grading. The observed variation underscores the importance of consistently reporting the exact method used for stenosis assessment. KEY POINTS: Question Advances in CT angiography acquisition and semi-automated software introduce new methods for stenosis assessment. How do these methods compare to the traditional minimal diameter-based NASCET approach? Findings Stenosis classification varies substantially across methods, with both systematic over- and underestimation depending on the measurement method used. Clinical relevance Different methods for stenosis measurements showed fair to moderate agreement affecting stenosis grading. Clearly reporting the measurement method is crucial for patient follow-up and clinical studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40753328What 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.