The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Prevalence of Asymptomatic Carotid Artery Stenosis According to Age and Sex: Systematic Review and Metaregression Analysis
Open accessAbstract
Background and Purpose— In the discussion on the value of population-wide screening for asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis (ACAS), reliable prevalence estimates are crucial. We set out to provide reliable age- and sex-specific prevalence estimates of ACAS through a systematic literature review and meta-regression analysis. Methods— We searched PubMed and EmBase until December 2007 for studies that reported the prevalence of ACAS in a population free of symptomatic carotid artery disease. Data were extracted with use of a standardized form on participants’ characteristics, assessment method, study quality, and prevalence estimates for moderate (≥50% stenosis) and severe (≥70% stenosis) ACAS. Metaregression was used to investigate sources of heterogeneity. Results— Forty studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. There was considerable variation among studies with respect to demographics, methods of grading stenosis, and stenosis cutoff point used. The pooled prevalence of moderate stenosis was 4.2% (95% CI, 3.1% to 5.7%). Prevalence of moderate stenosis among people age <70 years was 4.8% (95% CI, 3.1% to 7.3%) in men and 2.2% (95% CI, 0.9% to 4.9%) in women. Among those ≥70 years, prevalence increased to 12.5% (95% CI, 7.4% to 20.3%) in men and to 6.9% (95% CI, 4.0% to 11.5%) in women. Metaregression showed that both age and sex significantly affected the prevalence of moderate stenosis. No contribution of study size, publication year, geographic region, assessment method, and study quality was found. The pooled prevalence of severe stenosis was 1.7% (95% CI, 0.7% to 3.9%). Conclusions— Prevalence of moderate stenosis increases with age in both men and women, but men at all ages have the higher prevalence estimates. The number of studies that allowed meaningful data synthesis of severe stenosis was limited.
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
Cites
(2006) · Circulation · doi:10.1161/circ.113.22.f85 · Cited by 80
Cited by
Song, P., Fang, Z., Wang, H., Cai, Y., Rahimi, K., Zhu, Y., Fowkes, F. G. R., Fowkes, F. J. I., & Rudan, I. (2020) · The Lancet Global Health · doi:10.1016/s2214-109x(20)30117-0 · Cited by 866
Marquardt, L., Geraghty, O. C., Mehta, Z., & Rothwell, P. M. (2010) · Stroke · doi:10.1161/strokeaha.109.561837 · Cited by 454
de Weerd, M., Greving, J. P., Hedblad, B., Lorenz, M. W., Mathiesen, E. B., O'Leary, D. H., Rosvall, M., Sitzer, M., Buskens, E., & Bots, M. L. (2010) · Stroke · doi:10.1161/strokeaha.110.581058 · Cited by 435
Self-citationScreening for asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis
Weyer, G. W., & Davis, A. M. (2015) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2014.16804 · Cited by 17
Metadata
- Authors
- de Weerd, M., Greving, J. P., de Jong, A. W. F., Buskens, E., & Bots, M. L.
- Venue
- Stroke
- Published
- 2009-04
- Volume
- 40
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 1105-1113
- ISSN
- 0039-2499 (ISSN-L)
- 1524-4628
- OpenAlex
- W2139282876
- Cited by
- 245
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 9.66
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
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: Prevalence of Asymptomatic Carotid Artery Stenosis According to Age and Sex: Systematic Review and Metaregression Analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1161/strokeaha.108.532218
- The paper
- de Weerd, M., Greving, J. P., de Jong, A. W. F., Buskens, E., & Bots, M. L. (2009). Prevalence of Asymptomatic Carotid Artery Stenosis According to Age and Sex: Systematic Review and Metaregression Analysis. Stroke. https://doi.org/10.1161/strokeaha.108.532218
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.