Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,801

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Mannheim Carotid Intima-Media Thickness and Plaque Consensus (2004–2006–2011)

Open access
Touboul, P.-J., Hennerici, M.G., Meairs, S., Adams, H., Amarenco, P., Bornstein, N., Csiba, L., Desvarieux, M., Ebrahim, S., Hernandez Hernandez, R., Jaff, M., Kownator, S., Naqvi, T., Prati, P., Rundek, T., Sitzer, M., Schminke, U., Tardif, J.-C., Taylor, A., Vicaut, E., Woo, K.S.·2012·Cerebrovascular Diseases

Abstract

Intima-media thickness (IMT) provides a surrogate end point of cardiovascular outcomes in clinical trials evaluating the efficacy of cardiovascular risk factor modification. Carotid artery plaque further adds to the cardiovascular risk assessment. It 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. The scientific basis for use of IMT in clinical trials and practice includes ultrasound physics, technical and disease-related principles as well as best practice on the performance, interpretation and documentation of study results. Comparison of IMT results obtained from epidemiological and interventional studies around the world relies on harmonization on approaches to carotid image acquisition and analysis. This updated consensus document delineates further criteria to distinguish early atherosclerotic plaque formation from thickening of IMT. Standardized methods will foster homogenous data collection and analysis, improve the power of randomized clinical trials incorporating IMT and plaque measurements and facilitate the merging of large databases for meta-analyses. IMT results are applied to individual patients as an integrated assessment of cardiovascular risk factors. However, this document recommends against serial monitoring in individual patients.

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 · 10.1159/000343145

Cites

2 of 2 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 2 references

Cited by

See all 1,801

Metadata

Authors
Touboul, P.-J., Hennerici, M. G., Meairs, S., Adams, H., Amarenco, P., Bornstein, N., Csiba, L., Desvarieux, M., Ebrahim, S., Hernandez Hernandez, R., Jaff, M., Kownator, S., Naqvi, T., Prati, P., Rundek, T., Sitzer, M., Schminke, U., Tardif, J.-C., Taylor, A., Vicaut, E., & Woo, K. S.
Venue
Cerebrovascular Diseases
Publisher
S. Karger AG
Published
2012
Volume
34
Issue
4
Pages
290-296
ISSN
  • 1015-9770 (ISSN-L)
  • 1421-9786
OpenAlex
W2002349652
Cited by
1,801
References
2
FWCI
38.94
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 and Plaque Consensus (2004–2006–2011). https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1159/000343145
The paper
Touboul, P.-J., Hennerici, M. G., Meairs, S., Adams, H., Amarenco, P., Bornstein, N., Csiba, L., Desvarieux, M., Ebrahim, S., Hernandez Hernandez, R., Jaff, M., Kownator, S., Naqvi, T., Prati, P., Rundek, T., Sitzer, M., Schminke, U., Tardif, J.-C., Taylor, A., . . . Woo, K. S. (2012). Mannheim Carotid Intima-Media Thickness and Plaque Consensus (2004–2006–2011). Cerebrovascular Diseases. https://doi.org/10.1159/000343145

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.