ArticleJournal of ultrasound2026
Sequential contrast-enhanced ultrasound assessment of intraplaque enhancement in carotid plaques.
Article in Journal of ultrasound, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound for Carotid Plaque Characterization: An Algorithm-Aware Technical Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the feasibility and internal consistency of a sequential dynamic contrast-enhanced ultrasound protocol combining wash-in/wash-out and destruction-replenishment analyses for the assessment of intraplaque contrast enhancement in symptomatic patients with moderate carotid stenosis.
methodsThis retrospective single-center study included 38 symptomatic patients with ipsilateral internal carotid artery (ICA) stenosis of 50-69% who underwent carotid contrast-enhanced ultrasound with a consistent acquisition approach. Dynamic analysis was performed sequentially using wash-in/wash-out and destruction-replenishment techniques. Plaques were classified according to the presence of reproducible intraplaque contrast enhancement on contrast-specific imaging. Semi-quantitative parameters were extracted in enhancement-positive plaques when feasible. Agreement between wash-in/wash-out and destruction-replenishment plaque classification was assessed using Cohen's kappa coefficient.
resultsWash-in/wash-out analysis was feasible in 31 of 38 cases (82%), whereas destruction-replenishment analysis was feasible in 37 of 38 cases (97%). At least one technically adequate dynamic assessment was obtained in all patients. Reproducible intraplaque contrast enhancement was identified in 25 of 38 plaques (65.8%). Semi-quantitative analysis was feasible in 20 enhancement-positive plaques using wash-in/wash-out and in all enhancement-positive plaques using destruction-replenishment. Agreement between techniques, assessed in plaques with adequate acquisitions for both methods (n = 30), was good (κ = 0.77; 95% confidence interval, 0.45-0.90).
conclusionA sequential wash-in/wash-out and destruction-replenishment contrast-enhanced ultrasound protocol is feasible in symptomatic patients with moderate ICA stenosis and provides a coherent, signal-based assessment of intraplaque contrast enhancement in routine clinical practice.
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.