Table 3. Summary of the main results of the CTA Bartlett et al. criteria for CNO diagnosis.
| Authors | Total No. of patients with CNO |
Ref. diagnostic criteria (diagnostic technique) | Bartlett et al. criteria | Sensitivity (%) | Specificity (%) | PPV (%) | NPV (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bartlett et al., 2006, (47) | 42 | Feature interpretation (CTA) | Crit. 1 | 90.2 | 84.1 | 62.7 | 96.7 |
| Crit. 2 | 95.2 | 89.9 | 66.7 | 98.9 | |||
| Crit. 3 | 97.3 | 89.4 | 65.5 | 99.4 | |||
| Crit. 4 | 90.5 | 87.3 | 61.3 | 97.6 | |||
| Crit. 2 and Crit. 3 | 91.9 | 96.0 | 81.0 | 98.4 | |||
| Crit. 3 and Crit. 4 | 89.2 | 95.4 | 78.6 | 97.9 | |||
| Crit. 2 and Crit. 4 | 88.1 | 95.4 | 80.4 | 97.4 | |||
| Crit. 1 and Crit. 2 | 87.8 | 96.8 | 85.7 | 97.4 | |||
| Crit. 1 and Crit. 3 | 86.8 | 96.3 | 82.5 | 97.3 | |||
| Crit. 1 and Crit. 4 | 82.9 | 96.8 | 85.0 | 96.3 | |||
| Johansson et al., 2020, (48) | 104 | Feature interpretation (CTA) | At least 3 criteria | 100.0 | 87.0 | NR | NR |
| Fulfilling 4 criteria | 93.0 | 97.0 | NR | NR | |||
| Manrique-Zegarra et al., 2022, (49) | 28 | ≥2 of 4 feature interpretation (DSA) | Crit. 1 | 57–64 | 77–97 | 72–94 | 70 |
| Crit. 2 | 75–82 | 83–86 | 82–84 | 78–83 | |||
| Crit. 3 | 82–93 | 55–63 | 67–68 | 79–89 | |||
| Crit. 4 | 75–82 | 52–80 | 60–79 | 68–83 | |||
| At least 2 criteria | 82–89 | 62–70 | 68–74 | 78–88 | |||
| At least 3 criteria | 75–82 | 87–90 | 85–88 | 79–84 |
Crit. 1: narrowest diameter of the ICA bulb stenosis ≤1.3 mm; Crit. 2: distal ICA diameter ≤3.5 mm; Crit. 3: ratio of the ICA diameter to that of the contralateral distal ICA ≤0.87; Crit. 4: ratio of the distal ICA diameter to the distal ECA diameter ≤1.27. CTA, computed tomography angiography; CNO, carotid near occlusion; PPV, positive predictive value; NPV, negative predictive value; DSA, digital subtraction angiography; Crit., criteria; ICA, internal carotid artery; NR, not recorded; ECA, external carotid artery.