Perini 2011.

Clinical features and settings	People who underwent EVAR for AAA. Type of stents received: Zenith (Cook Medical, Bloomington, IA, USA), Talent (Medtronic, Santa Rosa, CA, USA), Anaconda (Vascutek, Glasgow, UK), fenestrated endografts (Cook Medical). All cases performed in dedicated operating theatre with OEC 9900 Elite MD Imaging System (GE Healthcare, Salt Lake City, UT, USA). Number of participants for each device not reported. Aneurysm diameter: mean (± SD): 5.5 ± 1.3. cm Setting: vascular surgery department.
Participants	395 participants; basic characteristics not reported. Comorbidities: not reported. Geography: France.
Study design	Retrospective study. Recruitment period: January 2006 to December 2010.
Target condition and reference standard(s)	Target condition: endoleak. Definition of endoleak: not reported. Endoleak (absolute n): 99. Prevalence of endoleak: 25.1% (99/395). Reference standard: 64‐slice CT scanner. Image acquisition: triple‐phase acquisition with unenhanced and contrast‐enhanced in arterial (with bolus tracking) and delayed phases (at 70 s) carried out from thorax to femoral bifurcations; thickness: 1 mm thickness every 0.7 mm. Type of CT scanner: 64‐slice CT scanner (Philips Brilliance 64 CT scanner, Philips Healthcare, Amsterdam, the Netherlands). Use of contrast: yes, 2 types: Iomeron 350 (Bracco SA, Milano, Italy); Omnipaque 350 (Amersham Health, Princeton, NJ, USA).
Index and comparator tests	Index test: CDUS. Image production: typical US examination started with standard B‐mode investigation to measure aneurysm sac diameter (outer wall to outer wall, dimensions recorded as the mean of 3 measurements). Then, blood flows from main body of endograft to femoral arteries analysed with pulse‐wave modality. In setting of fenestrated or multi‐branched endograft, visceral arteries also evaluated (feature not analysed in this study). Type of US: convex 3.5‐MHz probe, a Philips iE33 (Philips Healthcare, Amsterdam, the Netherlands), a Vivid 7 and a Vivid 9 (GE Healthcare, Salt Lake City, UT, USA) equipped with a convex 3.5‐MHz probe. Use of contrast: yes, SonoVue (Bracco, Milan, Italy). Operator:3 angiologists experienced in vascular ultrasonography.
Follow‐up	All participants completed follow‐up, and no adverse events recorded during these examinations.
Notes
Table of Methodological Quality
Item	Authors' judgement	Description
Representative spectrum? All tests	Yes	Participants represented average patients who after receiving EVAR are exposed to endoleak surveillance.
Acceptable reference standard? All tests	Yes	Reference standard was CTA.
Acceptable delay between tests? All tests	Yes	Time interval between the 2 examinations < 15 days.
Partial verification avoided? All tests	Yes	All study participants accounted for and results of reference standard reported for all.
Differential verification avoided? All tests	Yes	All participants who received index test subjected to same reference standard.
Incorporation avoided? All tests	Yes	Index test was part of reference standard.
Reference standard results blinded? All tests	Yes	CTAs analysed on independent dedicated workstation (Aquarius, TeraRecon, San Matteo, CA, USA) by both vascular surgeons and vascular radiologists (who were blinded to the results of CEUS, if already performed) to determine maximal aortic diameter by centre‐line measurements and to depict and characterise endoleaks.
Index test results blinded? All tests	Yes	All US scans performed by 3 angiologists experienced in vascular ultrasonography and use of US contrast material who were blinded to CTA findings at time of examination.
Relevant clinical information? All tests	Yes	Yes.
Uninterpretable results reported? All tests	Yes	All data were interpreted.
Withdrawals explained? All tests	Yes	All participants completed follow‐up, and no adverse events recorded during these examinations.