Study	Reason for exclusion
Anand 2018	Ineligible population. Less than 50% of the population was of interest and data on the subgroup of interest were unavailable
Bondjers 2000	Ineligible population. The study’s participants had an IMT test value of less than 1.3 mm, meaning they did not have carotid stenosis according to our definition.
Davidson 2012	Ineligible population. The study’s participants had an IMT test value of less than 1.3 mm, meaning they did not have carotid stenosis according to our definition.
Duman 2007	Ineligible population. The study’s participants had an IMT test value of less than 1.3 mm, meaning they did not have carotid stenosis according to our definition.
Esposito 2004	Ineligible population. The study’s participants had an IMT test value of less than 1.3 mm, meaning they did not have carotid stenosis according to our definition.
Fayad 2011	Ineligible population. The study did not evaluate carotid stenosis. Instead, it assessed arterial inflammation, defined as an arterial tissue‐to‐blood ratio (TBR) of 1.6 or higher. TBR was assessed as 18F‐FDG (F‐fluorodeoxyglucose) uptake, measured by PET/CT (positron emission tomography‐computed tomography) scan. It has been suggested that 18F‐FDG‐PET/CT could be used to measure inflammation within atherosclerosis plaque and potentially track its change with appropriate therapies.
Hosomi 2001	Ineligible population. The study’s participants had an IMT test value of less than 1.3 mm, meaning they did not have carotid stenosis according to our definition.
Huang 2006	Ineligible population. The study’s participants had an IMT test value of less than 1.3 mm, meaning they did not have carotid stenosis according to our definition.
Ichihara 2006	Ineligible population. The study’s participants had an IMT test value of less than 1.3 mm, meaning they did not have carotid stenosis according to our definition.
Igase 2012	Ineligible population. The study’s participants had an IMT test value of less than 1.3 mm, meaning they did not have carotid stenosis according to our definition.
Ito 2004	Ineligible population. This study did not subgroup participants by IMT test value, and we were unable to extract data specific to our population of interest.
Koeijvoets 2005	Ineligible population. The study’s participants had an IMT test value of less than 1.3 mm, meaning they did not have carotid stenosis according to our definition.
Laurora 1998	Ineligible population. The study’s participants had an IMT test value of less than 1.3 mm, meaning they did not have carotid stenosis according to our definition.
Ludwig 2002	Ineligible population. The study’s participants had an IMT test value of less than 1.3 mm, meaning they did not have carotid stenosis according to our definition.
Mazzone 2006	Ineligible population. The study’s participants had an IMT test value of less than 1.3 mm, meaning they did not have carotid stenosis according to our definition.
Meuwese 2009	Ineligible population. The study’s participants had an IMT test value of less than 1.3 mm, meaning they did not have carotid stenosis according to our definition.
Mizuguchi 2008	Ineligible population. The study’s participants had an IMT test value of less than 1.3 mm, meaning they did not have carotid stenosis according to our definition.
Mok 2010	Ineligible population. The study’s participants had an IMT test value of less than 1.3 mm, meaning they did not have carotid stenosis according to our definition.
Mortsell 2007	Ineligible population. The study’s participants had an IMT test value of less than 1.3 mm, meaning they did not have carotid stenosis according to our definition.
Oyama 2008	Ineligible population. This study did not subgroup participants by IMT test value, and we were unable to extract data specific to our population of interest.
Persson 1996	Ineligible population. The study’s participants had an IMT test value of less than 1.3 mm, meaning they did not have carotid stenosis according to our definition.
Pontremoli 2001	Ineligible population. The study’s participants had an IMT test value of less than 1.3 mm, meaning they did not have carotid stenosis according to our definition.
Saremi 2013	Ineligible population. The study’s participants had an IMT test value of less than 1.3 mm, meaning they did not have carotid stenosis according to our definition.
Stanton 2001	Ineligible population. The study’s participants had an IMT test value of less than 1.3 mm, meaning they did not have carotid stenosis according to our definition.
Stumpe 1994	Ineligible population. The study excluded people with stenosis or plaques of the common carotid arteries and of the internal carotid arteries of 70% of luminal diameter.
Tasić 2006	Ineligible population. The study’s participants had an IMT test value of less than 1.3 mm, meaning they did not have carotid stenosis according to our definition.
Vukusich 2010	Ineligible population. This study did not subgroup participants by IMT test value, and we were unable to extract data specific to our population of interest.
Yamasaki 2010	Ineligible population. The study’s participants had an IMT test value of less than 1.3 mm, meaning they did not have carotid stenosis according to our definition.
Yilmaz 2004	Ineligible population. The study’s participants had an IMT test value of less than 1.3 mm, meaning they did not have carotid stenosis according to our definition.
Yokoyama 2005	Ineligible population. The study’s participants had an IMT test value of less than 1.3 mm, meaning they did not have carotid stenosis according to our definition.

IMT: intima‐media thickness