The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Common Carotid Intima-Media Thickness and Risk of Stroke and Myocardial Infarction: The Rotterdam Study
Open accessAbstract
Background Noninvasive assessment of intima-media thickness (IMT) is widely used in observational studies and trials as an intermediate or proxy end point for cardiovascular disease. However, data showing that IMT predicts cardiovascular disease are limited. We studied whether common carotid IMT is related to future stroke and myocardial infarction. Methods and Results We used a nested case-control approach among 7983 subjects aged ≥55 years participating in the Rotterdam Study. At baseline (March 1990 through July 1993), ultrasound images of the common carotid artery were stored on videotape. Determination of incident myocardial infarction and stroke was predominantly based on hospital discharge records. Analysis (logistic regression) was based on 98 myocardial infarctions and 95 strokes that were registered before December 31, 1994. IMT was measured from videotape for all case subjects and a sample of 1373 subjects who remained free from myocardial infarction and stroke during follow-up. The mean duration of follow-up was 2.7 years. Results were adjusted for age and sex. Stroke risk increased gradually with increasing IMT. The odds ratio for stroke per standard deviation increase (0.163 mm) was 1.41 (95% CI, 1.25 to 1.82). For myocardial infarction, an odds ratio of 1.43 (95% CI, 1.16 to 1.78) was found. When subjects with a previous myocardial infarction or stroke were excluded, odds ratios were 1.57 (95% CI, 1.27 to 1.94) for stroke and 1.51 (95% CI, 1.18 to 1.92) for myocardial infarction. Additional adjustment for several cardiovascular risk factors attenuated these associations: 1.34 (95% CI, 1.08 to 1.67) and 1.25 (95% CI, 0.98 to 1.58), respectively. Conclusions The present study, based on a short follow-up period, provides evidence that an increased common carotid IMT is associated with future cerebrovascular and cardiovascular events.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Cited by
Mancia, G., Fagard, R., Narkiewicz, K., Redón, J., Zanchetti, A., Böhm, M., Christiaens, T., Cifkova, R., De Backer, G., Dominiczak, A., et al. (2013) · Journal of Hypertension · doi:10.1097/01.hjh.0000431740.32696.cc · Cited by 5,655
Self-citationO'Leary, D. H., Polak, J. F., Kronmal, R. A., Manolio, T. A., Burke, G. L., & Wolfson, S. K. (1999) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm199901073400103 · Cited by 4,685
Poirier, P., Giles, T. D., Bray, G. A., Hong, Y., Stern, J. S., Pi-Sunyer, F. X., & Eckel, R. H. (2006) · Circulation · doi:10.1161/circulationaha.106.171016 · Cited by 3,165
Lorenz, M. W., Markus, H. S., Bots, M. L., Rosvall, M., & Sitzer, M. (2007) · Circulation · doi:10.1161/circulationaha.106.628875 · Cited by 2,977
Self-citationAuthors/Task Force Members:, Mancia, G., De Backer, G., Dominiczak, A., Cifkova, R., Fagard, R., Germano, G., Grassi, G., Heagerty, A. M., Kjeldsen, S. E., et al. (2006) · European Heart Journal · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehm236 · Cited by 2,384
Metadata
- Authors
- Bots, M. L., Hoes, A. W., Koudstaal, P. J., Hofman, A., & Grobbee, D. E.
- Venue
- Circulation
- Published
- 1997-09-02
- Volume
- 96
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 1432-1437
- ISSN
- 0009-7322 (ISSN-L)
- 1524-4539
- OpenAlex
- W2058331351
- Cited by
- 2,345
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 21.15
- 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: Common Carotid Intima-Media Thickness and Risk of Stroke and Myocardial Infarction: The Rotterdam Study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1161/01.cir.96.5.1432
- The paper
- Bots, M. L., Hoes, A. W., Koudstaal, P. J., Hofman, A., & Grobbee, D. E. (1997). Common Carotid Intima-Media Thickness and Risk of Stroke and Myocardial Infarction: The Rotterdam Study. Circulation. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.cir.96.5.1432
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.