Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 314

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 28 of the 28 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review of the Predictive Value of Carotid Plaque Hemorrhage on Cerebrovascular Events by Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Open access
Saam, Tobias, Hetterich, Holger, Hoffmann, Verena, Yuan, Chun, Dichgans, Martin, Poppert, Holger, Koeppel, Thomas, Hoffmann, Ulrich, Reiser, Maximilian F., Bamberg, Fabian·2013·Journal of the American College of Cardiology

Abstract

OBJECTIVES This study sought to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine precise estimates of the predictive value of carotid intraplaque hemorrhage (IPH) as determined by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for cerebrovascular events. BACKGROUND There is emerging evidence that MR-based carotid atherosclerotic plaque assessment identifies high-risk features associated with cerebrovascular events. However, available data are based on smaller samples with heterogeneous source populations despite a promising value for noninvasive risk stratification. METHODS We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library through September 2012 for studies that followed >35 individuals after baseline MRI. Independent observers abstracted information on populations, MR techniques, outcomes, and study quality. Risk estimates of the presence of IPH for cerebrovascular events were derived in random effects regression analysis, and causes of heterogeneity were determined in meta-regression analysis. RESULTS We identified 8 eligible studies including 689 participants who underwent carotid MRI. The prevalence of IPH at baseline was high (49.0%). Over a median follow-up of 19.6 months, a total of 108 cerebrovascular events occurred (15.7% event rate). The presence of IPH was associated with an ∼6-fold higher risk for events (hazard ratio [HR]: 5.69; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.98 to 10.87). The annualized event rate in subjects with detectable IPH was 17.71% compared with 2.43% in patients without IPH. Meta-regression analysis showed symptomatic subjects had higher risks as compared with asymptomatic subjects (HR: 11.71, 95% CI: 5.17 to 26.48 vs. HR: 3.50, 95% CI: 2.59 to 4.73, p = 0.0065), Also, differences were observed for sex and sample size (all p < 0.01), with moderate visual publication bias due to missing smaller sample-size studies (p = 0.18). CONCLUSIONS Presence of IPH on MRI strongly predicts cerebrovascular events. Homogenization of future studies is warranted to allow for sufficient assessment of level of evidence for intervention trials.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jacc.2013.06.015

Cites

28 of 28 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 28 references

Cited by

See all 314

Metadata

Authors
Saam, T., Hetterich, H., Hoffmann, V., Yuan, C., Dichgans, M., Poppert, H., Koeppel, T., Hoffmann, U., Reiser, M. F., & Bamberg, F.
Venue
Journal of the American College of Cardiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2013-09
Volume
62
Issue
12
Pages
1081-1091
ISSN
0735-1097 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1984508486
Cited by
314
References
28
FWCI
4.74
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review of the Predictive Value of Carotid Plaque Hemorrhage on Cerebrovascular Events by Magnetic Resonance Imaging. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.jacc.2013.06.015
The paper
Saam, T., Hetterich, H., Hoffmann, V., Yuan, C., Dichgans, M., Poppert, H., Koeppel, T., Hoffmann, U., Reiser, M. F., & Bamberg, F. (2013). Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review of the Predictive Value of Carotid Plaque Hemorrhage on Cerebrovascular Events by Magnetic Resonance Imaging. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2013.06.015

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.