Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,513

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 17 of the 17 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Mannheim Carotid Intima-Media Thickness Consensus (2004–2006)

Open access
Touboul, P.-J., Hennerici, M.G., Meairs, S., Adams, H., Amarenco, P., Bornstein, N., Csiba, L., Desvarieux, M., Ebrahim, S., Fatar, M., Hernandez Hernandez, R., Jaff, M., Kownator, S., Prati, P., Rundek, T., Sitzer, M., Schminke, U., Tardif, J.-C., Taylor, A., Vicaut, E., Woo, K.S., Zannad, F., Zureik, M.·2007·Cerebrovascular Diseases

Abstract

Intima-media thickness (IMT) is increasingly used as a surrogate end point of vascular outcomes in clinical trials aimed at determining the success of interventions that lower risk factors for atherosclerosis and associated diseases (stroke, myocardial infarction and peripheral artery diseases). The necessity to promote further criteria to distinguish early atherosclerotic plaque formation from thickening of IMT and to standardize IMT measurements is expressed through this updated consensus. Plaque is defined as a focal structure that encroaches into the arterial lumen of at least 0.5 mm or 50% of the surrounding IMT value or demonstrates a thickness >1.5 mm as measured from the media-adventitia interface to the intima-lumen interface. Standard use of IMT measurements is based on physics, technical and disease-related principles as well as agreements on how to perform, interpret and document study results. Harmonization of carotid image acquisition and analysis is needed for the comparison of the IMT results obtained from epidemiological and interventional studies around the world. The consensus concludes that there is no need to ‘treat IMT values’ nor to monitor IMT values in individual patients apart from exceptions named, which emphasize that inside randomized clinical trials should be performed. Although IMT has been suggested to represent an important risk marker, according to the current evidence it does not fulfill the characteristics of an accepted risk factor. Standardized methods recommended in this consensus statement will foster homogenous data collection and analysis. This will help to improve the power of randomized clinical trials incorporating IMT measurements and to facilitate the merging of large databases for meta-analyses.

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 · 10.1159/000097034

Cites

17 of 17 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 17 references

Cited by

See all 1,513

Metadata

Authors
Touboul, P.-J., Hennerici, M. G., Meairs, S., Adams, H., Amarenco, P., Bornstein, N., Csiba, L., Desvarieux, M., Ebrahim, S., Fatar, M., Hernandez Hernandez, R., Jaff, M., Kownator, S., Prati, P., Rundek, T., Sitzer, M., Schminke, U., Tardif, J.-C., Taylor, A., Vicaut, E., Woo, K. S., Zannad, F., & Zureik, M.
Venue
Cerebrovascular Diseases
Publisher
S. Karger AG
Published
2006-11-14
Volume
23
Issue
1
Pages
75-80
ISSN
  • 1015-9770 (ISSN-L)
  • 1421-9786
OpenAlex
W1561566764
Cited by
1,513
References
17
FWCI
29.53
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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: Mannheim Carotid Intima-Media Thickness Consensus (2004–2006). https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1159/000097034
The paper
Touboul, P.-J., Hennerici, M. G., Meairs, S., Adams, H., Amarenco, P., Bornstein, N., Csiba, L., Desvarieux, M., Ebrahim, S., Fatar, M., Hernandez Hernandez, R., Jaff, M., Kownator, S., Prati, P., Rundek, T., Sitzer, M., Schminke, U., Tardif, J.-C., Taylor, A., . . . Zureik, M. (2007). Mannheim Carotid Intima-Media Thickness Consensus (2004–2006). Cerebrovascular Diseases. https://doi.org/10.1159/000097034

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.