Carotid duplex imaging: variation and validation
Background: Duplex imaging is increasingly used as the only investigation before carotid endarterectomy, but many different criteria exist in the literature for the detection of a severe (70–99 per cent) carotid stenosis. This study aimed to investigate current practice in carotid duplex imaging in...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | British journal of surgery 2000-03, Vol.87 (3), p.320-322 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 322 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 3 |
| container_start_page | 320 |
| container_title | British journal of surgery |
| container_volume | 87 |
| creator | Perkins, J. M. T. Galland, R. B. Simmons, M. J. Magee, T. R. |
| description | Background:
Duplex imaging is increasingly used as the only investigation before carotid endarterectomy, but many different criteria exist in the literature for the detection of a severe (70–99 per cent) carotid stenosis. This study aimed to investigate current practice in carotid duplex imaging in Great Britain and Ireland.
Methods:
A postal questionnaire was sent to 86 vascular surgical units.
Results:
The median number of scans performed per year was 450 (range 60–4500). Thirty‐six per cent of units who responded used peak systolic: end diastolic velocity ratio to calculate carotid stenosis. Overall, nine different major duplex criteria were used to grade carotid stenosis in 14 different systems of percentage bands. Only 51 per cent of units verified their duplex criteria against angiography. Eighteen per cent of units used two or more different types of duplex scanner and applied the same diagnostic criteria to each machine.
Conclusion:
A wide variation in diagnostic duplex criteria and methods of grading stenosis exists among vascular units. Internal validation is not performed routinely. Standardization of duplex criteria would ensure greater consistency, but would not replace the need for validation of results within each unit. © 2000 British Journal of Surgery Society Ltd |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1046/j.1365-2168.2000.01389.x |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_70985343</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>70985343</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4329-7560a6bb30e3b39abd65845db35901b5b694633b9434736ec86b31db0ce9b3503</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpNkMtOwzAQRS0EgvL4BZQFYpcwztiOjdhAxRuBoDyWlp0Y5JKmJW6h_D0uLY_V6GrOHWkOIQmFjAITe_2MouBpToXMcgDIgKJU2XSJdH4Xy6QTN0VKMcc1sh5CHyIFPF8laxQKKiXQDoGuaYdjXyXVZFS7aeIH5sU3L_vJu2m9Gfthk5imiqn21XfcJCvPpg5uazE3yMPJ8X33LL26OT3vHl6lJcNcpQUXYIS1CA4tKmMrwSXjlUWugFpuhWIC0SqGrEDhSiks0spC6VRkADfI7vzuqB2-TVwY64EPpatr07jhJOgClOTIMILbC3BiB67Sozb-0H7qnx8jsLMATChN_dyapvThj8tloSSL2MEc-_C1-_x3Rs-U676emdUzs3qmXH8r11N9dNHjTMV6Oq_7MHbT37ppX7UosOD66fpUA_TuepfwqG_xC1hTgOI</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>70985343</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Carotid duplex imaging: variation and validation</title><source>Wiley-Blackwell Journals</source><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Oxford University Press</source><creator>Perkins, J. M. T. ; Galland, R. B. ; Simmons, M. J. ; Magee, T. R.</creator><creatorcontrib>Perkins, J. M. T. ; Galland, R. B. ; Simmons, M. J. ; Magee, T. R.</creatorcontrib><description>Background:
Duplex imaging is increasingly used as the only investigation before carotid endarterectomy, but many different criteria exist in the literature for the detection of a severe (70–99 per cent) carotid stenosis. This study aimed to investigate current practice in carotid duplex imaging in Great Britain and Ireland.
Methods:
A postal questionnaire was sent to 86 vascular surgical units.
Results:
The median number of scans performed per year was 450 (range 60–4500). Thirty‐six per cent of units who responded used peak systolic: end diastolic velocity ratio to calculate carotid stenosis. Overall, nine different major duplex criteria were used to grade carotid stenosis in 14 different systems of percentage bands. Only 51 per cent of units verified their duplex criteria against angiography. Eighteen per cent of units used two or more different types of duplex scanner and applied the same diagnostic criteria to each machine.
Conclusion:
A wide variation in diagnostic duplex criteria and methods of grading stenosis exists among vascular units. Internal validation is not performed routinely. Standardization of duplex criteria would ensure greater consistency, but would not replace the need for validation of results within each unit. © 2000 British Journal of Surgery Society Ltd</description><identifier>ISSN: 0007-1323</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1365-2168</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2168.2000.01389.x</identifier><identifier>PMID: 10718801</identifier><identifier>CODEN: BJSUAM</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford, UK: Blackwell Science Ltd</publisher><subject>Biological and medical sciences ; Carotid Artery, Internal - diagnostic imaging ; Carotid Stenosis - diagnostic imaging ; Health Care Surveys ; Humans ; Investigative techniques, diagnostic techniques (general aspects) ; Ireland ; Medical sciences ; Nervous system ; Neurology ; Professional Practice ; Sensitivity and Specificity ; Ultrasonic investigative techniques ; Ultrasonography, Doppler, Duplex - standards ; United Kingdom ; Vascular diseases and vascular malformations of the nervous system</subject><ispartof>British journal of surgery, 2000-03, Vol.87 (3), p.320-322</ispartof><rights>2000 British Journal of Surgery Society Ltd</rights><rights>2000 INIST-CNRS</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4329-7560a6bb30e3b39abd65845db35901b5b694633b9434736ec86b31db0ce9b3503</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1046%2Fj.1365-2168.2000.01389.x$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1046%2Fj.1365-2168.2000.01389.x$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>309,310,314,776,780,785,786,1411,23909,23910,25118,27901,27902,45550,45551</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=1287984$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10718801$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Perkins, J. M. T.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Galland, R. B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Simmons, M. J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Magee, T. R.</creatorcontrib><title>Carotid duplex imaging: variation and validation</title><title>British journal of surgery</title><addtitle>Br J Surg</addtitle><description>Background:
Duplex imaging is increasingly used as the only investigation before carotid endarterectomy, but many different criteria exist in the literature for the detection of a severe (70–99 per cent) carotid stenosis. This study aimed to investigate current practice in carotid duplex imaging in Great Britain and Ireland.
Methods:
A postal questionnaire was sent to 86 vascular surgical units.
Results:
The median number of scans performed per year was 450 (range 60–4500). Thirty‐six per cent of units who responded used peak systolic: end diastolic velocity ratio to calculate carotid stenosis. Overall, nine different major duplex criteria were used to grade carotid stenosis in 14 different systems of percentage bands. Only 51 per cent of units verified their duplex criteria against angiography. Eighteen per cent of units used two or more different types of duplex scanner and applied the same diagnostic criteria to each machine.
Conclusion:
A wide variation in diagnostic duplex criteria and methods of grading stenosis exists among vascular units. Internal validation is not performed routinely. Standardization of duplex criteria would ensure greater consistency, but would not replace the need for validation of results within each unit. © 2000 British Journal of Surgery Society Ltd</description><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Carotid Artery, Internal - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Carotid Stenosis - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Health Care Surveys</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Investigative techniques, diagnostic techniques (general aspects)</subject><subject>Ireland</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Nervous system</subject><subject>Neurology</subject><subject>Professional Practice</subject><subject>Sensitivity and Specificity</subject><subject>Ultrasonic investigative techniques</subject><subject>Ultrasonography, Doppler, Duplex - standards</subject><subject>United Kingdom</subject><subject>Vascular diseases and vascular malformations of the nervous system</subject><issn>0007-1323</issn><issn>1365-2168</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2000</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNpNkMtOwzAQRS0EgvL4BZQFYpcwztiOjdhAxRuBoDyWlp0Y5JKmJW6h_D0uLY_V6GrOHWkOIQmFjAITe_2MouBpToXMcgDIgKJU2XSJdH4Xy6QTN0VKMcc1sh5CHyIFPF8laxQKKiXQDoGuaYdjXyXVZFS7aeIH5sU3L_vJu2m9Gfthk5imiqn21XfcJCvPpg5uazE3yMPJ8X33LL26OT3vHl6lJcNcpQUXYIS1CA4tKmMrwSXjlUWugFpuhWIC0SqGrEDhSiks0spC6VRkADfI7vzuqB2-TVwY64EPpatr07jhJOgClOTIMILbC3BiB67Sozb-0H7qnx8jsLMATChN_dyapvThj8tloSSL2MEc-_C1-_x3Rs-U676emdUzs3qmXH8r11N9dNHjTMV6Oq_7MHbT37ppX7UosOD66fpUA_TuepfwqG_xC1hTgOI</recordid><startdate>200003</startdate><enddate>200003</enddate><creator>Perkins, J. M. T.</creator><creator>Galland, R. B.</creator><creator>Simmons, M. J.</creator><creator>Magee, T. R.</creator><general>Blackwell Science Ltd</general><general>Wiley</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>200003</creationdate><title>Carotid duplex imaging: variation and validation</title><author>Perkins, J. M. T. ; Galland, R. B. ; Simmons, M. J. ; Magee, T. R.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4329-7560a6bb30e3b39abd65845db35901b5b694633b9434736ec86b31db0ce9b3503</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2000</creationdate><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Carotid Artery, Internal - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Carotid Stenosis - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Health Care Surveys</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Investigative techniques, diagnostic techniques (general aspects)</topic><topic>Ireland</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Nervous system</topic><topic>Neurology</topic><topic>Professional Practice</topic><topic>Sensitivity and Specificity</topic><topic>Ultrasonic investigative techniques</topic><topic>Ultrasonography, Doppler, Duplex - standards</topic><topic>United Kingdom</topic><topic>Vascular diseases and vascular malformations of the nervous system</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Perkins, J. M. T.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Galland, R. B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Simmons, M. J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Magee, T. R.</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>British journal of surgery</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Perkins, J. M. T.</au><au>Galland, R. B.</au><au>Simmons, M. J.</au><au>Magee, T. R.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Carotid duplex imaging: variation and validation</atitle><jtitle>British journal of surgery</jtitle><addtitle>Br J Surg</addtitle><date>2000-03</date><risdate>2000</risdate><volume>87</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>320</spage><epage>322</epage><pages>320-322</pages><issn>0007-1323</issn><eissn>1365-2168</eissn><coden>BJSUAM</coden><abstract>Background:
Duplex imaging is increasingly used as the only investigation before carotid endarterectomy, but many different criteria exist in the literature for the detection of a severe (70–99 per cent) carotid stenosis. This study aimed to investigate current practice in carotid duplex imaging in Great Britain and Ireland.
Methods:
A postal questionnaire was sent to 86 vascular surgical units.
Results:
The median number of scans performed per year was 450 (range 60–4500). Thirty‐six per cent of units who responded used peak systolic: end diastolic velocity ratio to calculate carotid stenosis. Overall, nine different major duplex criteria were used to grade carotid stenosis in 14 different systems of percentage bands. Only 51 per cent of units verified their duplex criteria against angiography. Eighteen per cent of units used two or more different types of duplex scanner and applied the same diagnostic criteria to each machine.
Conclusion:
A wide variation in diagnostic duplex criteria and methods of grading stenosis exists among vascular units. Internal validation is not performed routinely. Standardization of duplex criteria would ensure greater consistency, but would not replace the need for validation of results within each unit. © 2000 British Journal of Surgery Society Ltd</abstract><cop>Oxford, UK</cop><pub>Blackwell Science Ltd</pub><pmid>10718801</pmid><doi>10.1046/j.1365-2168.2000.01389.x</doi><tpages>3</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0007-1323 |
| ispartof | British journal of surgery, 2000-03, Vol.87 (3), p.320-322 |
| issn | 0007-1323 1365-2168 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_70985343 |
| source | Wiley-Blackwell Journals; MEDLINE; Oxford University Press |
| subjects | Biological and medical sciences Carotid Artery, Internal - diagnostic imaging Carotid Stenosis - diagnostic imaging Health Care Surveys Humans Investigative techniques, diagnostic techniques (general aspects) Ireland Medical sciences Nervous system Neurology Professional Practice Sensitivity and Specificity Ultrasonic investigative techniques Ultrasonography, Doppler, Duplex - standards United Kingdom Vascular diseases and vascular malformations of the nervous system |
| title | Carotid duplex imaging: variation and validation |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-11T16%3A33%3A46IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Carotid%20duplex%20imaging:%20variation%20and%20validation&rft.jtitle=British%20journal%20of%20surgery&rft.au=Perkins,%20J.%20M.%20T.&rft.date=2000-03&rft.volume=87&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=320&rft.epage=322&rft.pages=320-322&rft.issn=0007-1323&rft.eissn=1365-2168&rft.coden=BJSUAM&rft_id=info:doi/10.1046/j.1365-2168.2000.01389.x&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E70985343%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=70985343&rft_id=info:pmid/10718801&rfr_iscdi=true |