Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 272

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 49 of the 49 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Practice Standards for Transcranial Doppler (TCD) Ultrasound. Part II. Clinical Indications and Expected Outcomes

Alexandrov, Andrei V., Sloan, Michael A., Tegeler, Charles H., Newell, David N., Lumsden, Alan, Garami, Zsolt, Levy, Christopher R., Wong, Lawrence K.S., Douville, Colleen, Kaps, Manfred, Tsivgoulis, Georgios, for the American Society of Neuroimaging Practice Guidelines Committee·2012·Journal of Neuroimaging

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Transcranial Doppler (TCD) is a physiological ultrasound test with established safety and efficacy. Although imaging devices may be used to depict intracranial flow superimposed on structural visualization, the end‐result provided by imaging duplex or nonimaging TCD is sampling physiological flow variables through the spectral waveform assessment. SUMMARY OF RESULTS: Clinical indications considered by this multidisciplinary panel of experts as established are: sickle cell disease, cerebral ischemia, detection of right‐to‐left shunts (RLS), subarachnoid hemorrhage, brain death, and periprocedural or surgical monitoring. The following TCD‐procedures are performed in routine in‐ and outpatient clinical practice: complete or partial TCD‐examination to detect normal, stenosed, or occluded intracranial vessels, collaterals to locate an arterial obstruction and refine carotid‐duplex or noninvasive angiographic findings; vasomotor reactivity testing to identify high‐risk patients for first‐ever or recurrent stroke; emboli detection to detect, localize, and quantify cerebral embolization in real time; RLS‐detection in patients with suspected paradoxical embolism or those considered for shunt closure; monitoring of thrombolysis to facilitate recanalization and detect reocclusion; monitoring of endovascular stenting, carotid endarterectomy, and cardiac surgery to detect perioperative embolism, thrombosis, hypo‐ and hyperperfusion. CONCLUSION: By defining the scope of practice, these standards will assist referring and reporting physicians and third parties involved in the process of requesting, evaluating, and acting upon TCD results.

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 · 10.1111/j.1552-6569.2010.00523.x

Cites

49 of 49 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 49 references

Cited by

See all 272

Metadata

Authors
Alexandrov, A. V., Sloan, M. A., Tegeler, C. H., Newell, D. N., Lumsden, A., Garami, Z., Levy, C. R., Wong, L. K. S., Douville, C., Kaps, M., Tsivgoulis, G., & for the American Society of Neuroimaging Practice Guidelines Committee
Venue
Journal of Neuroimaging
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2010-10-26
Volume
22
Issue
3
Pages
215-224
ISSN
  • 1051-2284 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-6569
OpenAlex
W2084337046
Cited by
272
References
49
FWCI
10.33
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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: Practice Standards for Transcranial Doppler (TCD) Ultrasound. Part II. Clinical Indications and Expected Outcomes. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1552-6569.2010.00523.x
The paper
Alexandrov, A. V., Sloan, M. A., Tegeler, C. H., Newell, D. N., Lumsden, A., Garami, Z., Levy, C. R., Wong, L. K. S., Douville, C., Kaps, M., Tsivgoulis, G., & for the American Society of Neuroimaging Practice Guidelines Committee. (2012). Practice Standards for Transcranial Doppler (TCD) Ultrasound. Part II. Clinical Indications and Expected Outcomes. Journal of Neuroimaging. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1552-6569.2010.00523.x

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.