Common carotid intima-media thickness measurements in cardiovascular risk prediction: a meta-analysis.

By H. D. den Ruijter, S. Peters, T. Anderson, A. Britton, J. Dekker, Marinus J. C. Eijkemans, G. Engström, G. Evans, J. de Graaf, Diederick E. Grobbee and 26 more. Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), 2012

725 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Carotid intima-media thickness and plaque in cardiovascular risk assessment. (2014, methodology): “Both meta-analyses (33,34) noted a significant variability in the CIMT methodologies and in reporting of mean or maximal CIMT of single or multiple segments, making it difficult to compare studies or to combine the results from different studies.”
2016 European Guidelines on cardiovascular disease prevention in clinical practice. (2016, neutral): “A recent meta-analysis failed to demonstrate any added value of IMT compared to the Framingham Risk Score in predicting future CVD, even in the intermediate risk group.(128) Thus, the systematic use of carotid ultrasound IMT to improve risk assessment is not recommended.”
Guidelines for the Primary Prevention of Stroke (2011, neutral): “Additional refinements include a measure of carotid intima-media thickness (IMT); however, these refinements result in only a small improvement in 10-year risk prediction of first-time MI or stroke that is unlikely to be of clinical importance.(17) FSP scores can be calculated to estimate sex-specif”
2016 European Guidelines on cardiovascular disease prevention in clinical practice (2016, neutral): “A recent meta-analysis failed to demonstrate any added value of IMT compared to the Framingham Risk Score in predicting future CVD, even in the intermediate risk group.(128) Thus, the systematic use of carotid ultrasound IMT to improve risk assessment is not recommended.”