The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Detection and quantification of carotid artery stenosis: efficacy of various Doppler velocity parameters.
Open accessAbstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare the accuracies of the different Doppler velocity parameters used to grade stenoses of the carotid artery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seven velocity parameters determined with Doppler spectra were compared with angiographic findings in 138 carotid bifurcations: the peak systolic and peak end-diastolic velocities in the internal and common carotid arteries, the ratios of peak systolic and peak end-diastolic velocities between the internal and common carotid arteries, and the ratio of peak systolic velocity in the internal carotid artery to peak end-diastolic velocity in the common carotid artery. A receiver-operating-characteristic (ROC) analysis was performed, with and without correction for the bias introduced by preferentially selecting patients for angiography, if the Doppler results indicated a lesion. Multiple regression analysis was performed to predict the percent stenosis and to predict the probability of a 70% or greater stenosis. RESULTS: Of the Doppler parameters, the peak systolic velocity in the internal carotid artery and its ratio to the peak end-diastolic velocity in the common carotid artery were the most accurate and had equivalent test performance (ROC area = 0.94; after correction for verification bias, ROC area = 0.78). In multiple regression analysis, the peak systolic velocity in the internal carotid artery was the most significant parameter, although its ratio to the peak end-diastolic velocity in the common carotid artery had incremental value in detecting a 70% or greater stenosis, and the peak systolic velocity in the common carotid artery provided additional information for quantifying the stenosis. CONCLUSION: The peak systolic velocity in the internal carotid artery is the best single velocity parameter for quantifying a stenosis and for detecting a 70% or greater stenosis.
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
Grant, E. G., Benson, C. B., Moneta, G. L., Alexandrov, A. V., Baker, J. D., Bluth, E. I., Carroll, B. A., Eliasziw, M., Gocke, J., Hertzberg, B. S., et al. (2003) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiol.2292030516 · Cited by 1,539
Self-citationMesenteric and celiac duplex scanning: a validation study
Zwolak, R. M., Fillinger, M. F., Walsh, D. B., LaBombard, F. A., Musson, A., Darling, C. E., & Cronenwett, J. L. (1998) · Journal of Vascular Surgery · doi:10.1016/s0741-5214(98)60010-0 · Cited by 162
Metadata
- Authors
- Hunink, M. G., Polak, J. F., Barlan, M. M., & O'Leary, D. H.
- Venue
- American Journal of Roentgenology
- Publisher
- American Roentgen Ray Society
- Published
- 1993-03
- Volume
- 160
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 619-625
- ISSN
- 0002-9580 (ISSN-L)
- 0361-803X
- 1546-3141
- OpenAlex
- W1966745537
- Cited by
- 190
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 7.30
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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: Detection and quantification of carotid artery stenosis: efficacy of various Doppler velocity parameters. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2214/ajr.160.3.8430567
- The paper
- Hunink, M. G., Polak, J. F., Barlan, M. M., & O'Leary, D. H. (1993). Detection and quantification of carotid artery stenosis: efficacy of various Doppler velocity parameters. American Journal of Roentgenology. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.160.3.8430567
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.