Cui 2018.

Study characteristics
Patient Sampling	54 patients presenting with carotid stenosis were admitted to the First Affiliated Hospital of Xinxiang Medical University (Xinxiang, China). Unclear how they were recruited
Patient characteristics and setting	All patients where carotid stenosis was suspected to arise from vascular diseases in the head and neck. In addition, all patients had experienced transient Ischemic attack and other neurological symptoms. The patients consisted of 32 males and 22 females aged between 37 and 82 years, with a mean age of 63.06 ± 13.21 years. Risk factors not described
Index tests	DUS Image production: A Color Doppler Ultrasography (CDUS) diagnostic instrument (Esaote North America, Inc., Indianapolis, IN USA) with a probe frequency range of 5‐12 MHz Contrast: No Criteria used to determine grade of stenosis: Grant 2003
Target condition and reference standard(s)	Reference standard: DSA Target condition: patients where carotid stenosis was suspected to arise from vascular diseases in the head and neck Criteria used to determine grade of stenosis: NASCET criteria Complications: Not described
Flow and timing	No patients were excluded from analysis. All patients underwent CDUS, CE MRA and DSA examinations within 1 week of diagnosis.
Comparative
Methods	Study design: Prospective cohort study Study location: China Year and language of publication: Published in 2017 in English Study period: from January 2012 to January 2014 Participants enrolled: 54 patients. Carotids included in analyses: 216
Notes	Considered 216 carotid arteries because investigators counted the common carotid artery and the internal carotid artery as separated vessels for analysis Did not describe whether patients had undergone any screening imaging test before being included in the study
Methodological quality
Item	Authors' judgement	Risk of bias	Applicability concerns
DOMAIN 1: Patient Selection
Was a consecutive or random sample of patients enrolled?	Unclear
Was a case‐control design avoided?	Yes
Did the study avoid inappropriate exclusions?	Unclear
Could the selection of patients have introduced bias?		Unclear risk
Are there concerns that the included patients and setting do not match the review question?			Low concern
DOMAIN 2: Index Test (All tests)
Were the index test results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the reference standard?	Yes
If a threshold was used, was it pre‐specified?	Yes
Could the conduct or interpretation of the index test have introduced bias?		Low risk
Are there concerns that the index test, its conduct, or interpretation differ from the review question?			Low concern
DOMAIN 3: Reference Standard
Is the reference standards likely to correctly classify the target condition?	Yes
Were the reference standard results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the index tests?	Unclear
Could the reference standard, its conduct, or its interpretation have introduced bias?		Unclear risk
Are there concerns that the target condition as defined by the reference standard does not match the question?			Unclear
DOMAIN 4: Flow and Timing
Was there an appropriate interval between index test and reference standard?	Yes
Did all patients receive the same reference standard?	Yes
Were all patients included in the analysis?	Yes
Could the patient flow have introduced bias?		Low risk