Knudsen 2002.

Study characteristics
Patient Sampling	Included patients with suspected symptomatic high‐grade ICA stenosis but did not specify how they suspected it was high‐grade stenosis
Patient characteristics and setting	65 symptomatic patients Characteristics not described Unclear if there were previous exams performed
Index tests	DUS Image production: Siemens Sonoline Elegra, Siemens Medical System, Washington Contrast: No Criteria used to determine grade of stenosis:stenosis ≥ 70% stenosis was characterized by an ICA PSV ≥ 150 cm/s, an ICA end diastolic velocity ≥ 90 cm/s, and a PSV ratio ≥ 2.8. No flow indicated occlusion.
Target condition and reference standard(s)	Reference standard: DSA Target condition: symptomatic high‐grade ICA stenosis Criteria used to determine grade of stenosis: NASCET Complications: Not described
Flow and timing	DSA and DUS performed within 2 days 65 patients and 129 arteries were included in analysis; unclear why 1 artery was excluded
Comparative
Methods	Study design: Prospective, consecutive, accuracy cohort study Study location: Denmark Year and language of publication: Published in 2002 in English Study period: a 12‐month period 1998 to 1999 Participants enrolled: 65 patients Carotids included in analyses: 129 arteries
Notes
Methodological quality
Item	Authors' judgement	Risk of bias	Applicability concerns
DOMAIN 1: Patient Selection
Was a consecutive or random sample of patients enrolled?	Yes
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?			Unclear
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?	Yes
Could the reference standard, its conduct, or its interpretation have introduced bias?		Low risk
Are there concerns that the target condition as defined by the reference standard does not match the question?			Low concern
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?	No
Could the patient flow have introduced bias?		High risk