(Stroke. 2000;31:1444.)
© 2000 American Heart Association, Inc.
Comments, Opinions, and Reviews |
Critical Appraisal of the Design and Reporting of Studies of Imaging and Measurement of Carotid Stenosis
From the Department of Clinical Neurology, Radcliffe Infirmary (P.M.R., S.T.P.), Oxford, UK; and the Department of Clinical Neurosciences, Western General Hospital (J.W., C.P.W.), Edinburgh, UK.
Correspondence to Dr P. Rothwell, Department of Clinical Neurology, Radcliffe Infirmary, Woodstock Road, Oxford OX2 6HE, UK. E-mail peter.rothwell{at}clneuro.ox.ac.uk
Background and Purpose—Several hundred studies have been published over the last few years on imaging and measurement of carotid stenosis. Despite all this research, there is still no consensus about how best to image and measure stenosis. One possible explanation for this is that many of the studies have not been large enough or methodologically sound enough to allow useful conclusions to be drawn. We aimed to assess the design and methods of a random sample of published studies of imaging and measurement of carotid stenosis using 9 simple criteria.
Methods—A formal literature search was performed for studies of imaging and measurement of carotid stenosis. Two subsets were randomly selected for detailed assessment: 20 studies published before 1991 and 20 published between 1993 and 1997 (some years after the initial publication of the ECST and NASCET trials). The criteria used to assess the selected studies were as follows: prospective rather than retrospective study design; patient selection based on a consecutive series or a random sample; adequate detail of study population; adequate detail of imaging techniques; inclusion of all investigations, ie, patients with poor-quality imaging were not excluded; blinded assessment of images; adequate detail of derivation of measurement of stenosis from images or data; adequate data on the reproducibility of measurements of stenosis; and study powered according to a sample-size calculation.
Results—There were many basic methodological deficiencies in both
subsets of studies, with relatively little evidence of improvement with
time. For example, only 33% of studies were prospective, only 45%
studied a consecutive or random selection of patients, and only 38%
reported any data on the reproducibility of measurements. More than
half of the studies satisfied 
4 of the 9 quality criteria. However,
there was considerable variation between studies, with 7 studies
satisfying 
7 criteria and 10 studies satisfying 2. No study was
based on a sample-size calculation. The number of patients studied was
often small, particularly in the more recent studies: median sample
size was 100 in the 1970–1990 studies and 58 in the 1993–1997 studies
(P<0.0001).
Conclusions—The design and reporting of published studies of imaging and measurement of carotid stenosis are poor and have not improved much in recent years. The majority of published studies are not of a sufficient standard to enable the results to be used to inform clinical practice. The utility of future studies could be improved considerably by better adherence to 9 simple methodological guidelines.
Key Words: diagnostic imaging • measurement • carotid stenosis
This article has been cited by other articles:
 |
|
 |
|
  F. Runck, R.P. Steiner, W.A. Bautz, and M.M. Lell MR Imaging: Influence of Imaging Technique and Postprocessing on Measurement of Internal Carotid Artery Stenosis AJNR Am. J. Neuroradiol., October 1, 2008; 29(9): 1736 - 1742. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S Khan, G C Cloud, S Kerry, and H S Markus Imaging of vertebral artery stenosis: a systematic review J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry, November 1, 2007; 78(11): 1218 - 1225. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
H.M. Silvennoinen, S. Ikonen, L. Soinne, M. Railo, and L. Valanne CT Angiographic Analysis of Carotid Artery Stenosis: Comparison of Manual Assessment, Semiautomatic Vessel Analysis, and Digital Subtraction Angiography AJNR Am. J. Neuroradiol., January 1, 2007; 28(1): 97 - 103. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Lell, C. Fellner, U. Baum, T. Hothorn, R. Steiner, W. Lang, W. Bautz, and F.A. Fellner Evaluation of Carotid Artery Stenosis with Multisection CT and MR Imaging: Influence of Imaging Modality and Postprocessing AJNR Am. J. Neuroradiol., January 1, 2007; 28(1): 104 - 110. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 R.L. Cuffe and P.M. Rothwell Effect of Nonoptimal Imaging on the Relationship Between the Measured Degree of Symptomatic Carotid Stenosis and Risk of Ischemic Stroke Stroke, July 1, 2006; 37(7): 1785 - 1791. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 L. R. Sprouse II, G. H. Meier, F. N. Parent, R. J. DeMasi, C. J. LeSar, C. Nelms, K. Carter, M. J. Marcinczyk, R. G. Gayle, and B. Mendoza Are We Undertreating Carotid Stenoses Diagnosed by Ultrasound Alone? Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, March 1, 2005; 39(2): 143 - 151. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. E. Hyde, A. J. Fox, I. Gulka, P. Kalapos, D. H. Lee, D. M. Pelz, and D. W. Holdsworth Internal Carotid Artery Stenosis Measurement: Comparison of 3D Computed Rotational Angiography and Conventional Digital Subtraction Angiography Stroke, December 1, 2004; 35(12): 2776 - 2781. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. J.W. Koelemay, P. J. Nederkoorn, J. B. Reitsma, and C. B. Majoie Systematic Review of Computed Tomographic Angiography for Assessment of Carotid Artery Disease Stroke, October 1, 2004; 35(10): 2306 - 2312. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 T. E. Feasby and J. M. Findlay CT angiography for the assessment of carotid stenosis Neurology, August 10, 2004; 63(3): 412 - 413. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. M. U-King-Im, R. A. Trivedi, M. J. Graves, N. J. Higgins, J. J. Cross, B. D. Tom, W. Hollingworth, H. Eales, E. A. Warburton, P. J. Kirkpatrick, et al. Contrast-enhanced MR angiography for carotid disease: Diagnostic and potential clinical impact Neurology, April 27, 2004; 62(8): 1282 - 1290. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. Kennedy, H. Quan, W. A. Ghali, and T. E. Feasby Importance of the imaging modality in decision making about carotid endarterectomy Neurology, March 23, 2004; 62(6): 901 - 904. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. M. Rothwell For Severe Carotid Stenosis Found on Ultrasound, Further Arterial Evaluation Prior to Carotid Endarterectomy Is Unnecessary: The Argument Against Stroke, July 1, 2003; 34(7): 1817 - 1819. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. U-King-Im, R. Trivedi, J. H. Gillard, D. C.C. Johnston, J. D. Eastwood, and L. B. Goldstein Contrast-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Angiography Carotid Arteries * Response Stroke, May 1, 2003; 34 (5): e15 - e15. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. J. Nederkoorn, Y. van der Graaf, and M.G. M. Hunink Duplex Ultrasound and Magnetic Resonance Angiography Compared With Digital Subtraction Angiography in Carotid Artery Stenosis: A Systematic Review Stroke, May 1, 2003; 34(5): 1324 - 1331. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. M. Rothwell, S. A. Gutnikov, and C. P. Warlow Reanalysis of the Final Results of the European Carotid Surgery Trial Stroke, February 1, 2003; 34(2): 514 - 523. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. C.C. Johnston, J. D. Eastwood, T. Nguyen, and L. B. Goldstein Contrast-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Angiography of Carotid Arteries: Utility in Routine Clinical Practice Stroke, December 1, 2002; 33(12): 2834 - 2838. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. J. Nederkoorn, Y. van der Graaf, B. C. Eikelboom, A. van der Lugt, L. W. Bartels, and W. P.T.M. Mali Time-of-Flight MR Angiography of Carotid Artery Stenosis: Does a Flow Void Represent Severe Stenosis? AJNR Am. J. Neuroradiol., November 1, 2002; 23(10): 1779 - 1784. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
G. Schulte-Altedorneburg, D. W. Droste, S. Felszeghy, L. Csiba, V. Popa, K. Hegedus, J. Kollar, L. Modis, and E. B. Ringelstein Detection of Carotid Artery Stenosis by In Vivo Duplex Ultrasound: Correlation With Planimetric Measurements of the Corresponding Postmortem Specimens Stroke, October 1, 2002; 33(10): 2402 - 2407. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. J. Nederkoorn, W. P.Th.M. Mali, B. C. Eikelboom, O. E.H. Elgersma, E. Buskens, M.G. M. Hunink, L. J. Kappelle, P. C. Buijs, A. F.J. Wust, A. van der Lugt, et al. Preoperative Diagnosis of Carotid Artery Stenosis: Accuracy of Noninvasive Testing Stroke, August 1, 2002; 33(8): 2003 - 2008. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S G Patel, D A Collie, J M Wardlaw, S C Lewis, A R Wright, R J Gibson, and R J Sellar Outcome, observer reliability, and patient preferences if CTA, MRA, or Doppler ultrasound were used, individually or together, instead of digital subtraction angiography before carotid endarterectomy J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry, July 1, 2002; 73(1): 21 - 28. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. C.C. Johnston and L. B. Goldstein Clinical carotid endarterectomy decision making: Noninvasive vascular imaging versus angiography Neurology, April 24, 2001; 56(8): 1009 - 1015. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. S. Jeret, H. J. M. Barnett, and J. P. Broderick Carotid endarterectomy: Another wake-up call Neurology, April 24, 2001; 56(8): 1118 - 1118. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|