ArticleNeuroradiology2026
Duplex ultrasound in severe carotid stenosis: diagnostic performance for differentiating near-occlusion subtypes from conventional high-grade stenosis.
Article in Neuroradiology, 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeCarotid near-occlusion (CNO) is a subtype of severe carotid stenosis characterized by partial or complete distal internal carotid artery (ICA) collapse. Its diagnosis currently relies on angiographic imaging, and no validated duplex ultrasound (DUS) criteria exist. We aimed to assess the utility of DUS in distinguishing conventional high-grade stenosis (HGS), CNO without, and CNO with full collapse.
methodsWe retrospectively included patients with > 80% NASCET stenosis on DUS (2012-2021) who underwent CTA, MRA, or DSA within 3 months. DUS parameters were compared across groups defined by angiographic classification using uni- and multivariable analyses.
resultsAmong 78 patients, 21 had HGS, 34 CNO without, and 23 CNO with full collapse. DUS agreed with angiographic classification in 54%, with CNO without full collapse often misclassified as HGS (85%). Velocity-based DUS metrics could not reliably distinguish CNO without full collapse from HGS. However, CNO with full collapse was distinguishable based on stenotic and distal peak-systolic and end-diastolic velocities and derived ratios (AUCs 0.70-0.76). Diameter-based metrics distinguished HGS from both CNO types: distal ICA < 3.15 mm (AUC 0.79) and ICA/ECA ratio < 0.98 (AUC 0.78). Multivariable models increased discriminatory performance (AUC 0.82).
conclusionVelocity-based DUS metrics cannot reliably distinguish HGS from CNO without full collapse, representing a key clinical challenge. Although DUS-derived metrics were associated with angiographically defined CNO with full collapse, overall diagnostic gain was modest and additional imaging will often remain necessary. Nevertheless, DUS remains useful for follow-up, as hemodynamic changes may indicate evolving distal collapse.
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.