| Study | Reason for exclusion |
|---|---|
| AbuRahma 1995 | Study did not define the proportion of symptomatic patients and time between index test and alternative test was not specified |
| AbuRahma 1997 | Less than 70% of the patients included were symptomatic and time between index test and alternative test was not specified |
| AbuRahma 1998 | Less than 70% of the patients included were symptomatic |
| AbuRahma 2011 | Less than 70% of the patients included were symptomatic |
| Ackerstaff 1982 | Less than 70% of the patients included were symptomatic |
| Ackroyd 1984 | Study did not define the proportion of symptomatic patients and time between index test and alternative test was not specified |
| Adiga 1984 | Study did not provide enough data for construction of a 2 x 2 table and the method of calculating the degree of stenosis |
| Alexandrov 1993 | Study did not define the proportion of symptomatic patients and time between index test and alternatives tests was not specified |
| Alexandrov 1997a | Study did not define the proportion of symptomatic patients and time between index test and alternatives tests was not specified |
| Alexandrov 1997b | Study did not define the proportion of symptomatic patients |
| Alves 1982 | Time between index test and alternative test was not specified |
| Alves 1983 | Less than 70% of the patients included were symptomatic, time between index test and alternative test was not specified, and the study did not provide enough information about the method of calculating the degree of stenosis |
| Ammar 2017 | Retrospective study that did not provide any suitable test comparison. The object of the study was if additional imaging studies (over DUS) were necessary for treatment planning |
| Anderson 1983 | Time between index test and alternative test was not specified. An experimental study about the US method; the quantification of stenosis was based on subjective visual impression |
| Anderson 2000 | The DUS examinations were not standardized and there was no description of time between examinations |
| Appleberg 1982 | Study did not define the proportion of symptomatic patients and time between index test and alternatives tests was not specified |
| Arbeille 1984 | Study did not define the proportion of symptomatic patients and the degree of stenosis was determined by a subjective visual impression of the Doppler spectrum analysis |
| Arbeille 1997 | Only DUS was assessed; there was no comparison with CTA or DSA or MRA |
| Archie 1981 | Study did not define the proportion of symptomatic patients and time between index test and alternatives tests was not specified |
| Arous 2019 | Study did not define the proportion of symptomatic patients and time between index test and alternative test was more than four weeks |
| Auffray‐Calvier 1996 | Comparision on MRA and DSA. DUS was performed, but there were no data on DUS accuracy |
| Azieva 2016 | No suitable diagnostic accuracy data |
| Back 2000 | Less than 70% of the patients included were symptomatic |
| Back 2003 | No direct comparison between DUS and MRA or DSA. The study compared MRA and DSA after inconclusive duplex scan |
| Bain 1998 | Time between index test and alternative test was more than four weeks |
| Ballard 1994 | Less than 70% of the patients included were symptomatic and time between index test and alternative test was more than four weeks |
| Ballard 1997 | Less than 70% of the patients included were symptomatic |
| Ballotta 1999 | Less than 70% of the patients included were symptomatic |
| Bandyk 1985 | Time between index test and alternative test was not specified and the degree of stenosis was determined by a subjective visual impression of the Doppler spectrum analysis |
| Barlinn 2018 | Less than 70% of the patients included were symptomatic |
| Barnes 1976 | Study did not define the proportion of symptomatic patients |
| Barnes 1982 | Preliminary paper of DUS technique; no objective criteria to estimate stenosis described (subjective visual impression of the degree of stenosis). Time between index test and alternative test was not specified |
| Barry 1987 | Less than 70% of the patients included were symptomatic |
| Bartylla 1997 | Study did not define the proportion of symptomatic patients and time between index test and alternatives tests was not specified |
| Baskett 1976 | Preliminary paper on DUS technique. Most of the included population were healthy volunteers |
| Beckett 1990 | Study did not define the proportion of symptomatic patients and time between index test and alternatives tests was not specified |
| Beebe 1999 | Study did not define the proportion of symptomatic patients.Time between index test and alternative test was more than four weeks |
| Beer 1983 | Preliminary paper of DUS technique; no objective criteria to estimate stenosis described (subjective visual impression of the degree of stenosis) |
| Beer 1986 | Preliminary paper of DUS technique; no objective criteria to estimate stenosis described (subjective visual impression of the degree of stenosis) |
| Benhamou 1984 | Preliminary paper of DUS technique; no objective criteria to estimate stenosis described (subjective visual impression of the degree of stenosis) and compared DUS results with postoperative endarterectomy specimens |
| Berger 1983 | Preliminary paper of DUS technique; no objective criteria to estimate stenosis described (subjective visual impression of the degree of stenosis) and index test was transvenous digital subtraction angiography. Study did not define the proportion of symptomatic patients |
| Berman 1995 | Time between index test and alternatives tests was not specified |
| Berry 1980 | Preliminary paper of DUS technique; no objective criteria to estimate stenosis described (subjective visual impression of the degree of stenosis). Time between index test and alternative test was not specified |
| Beutler 1985 | Study did not define the proportion of symptomatic patients and the degree of stenosis was determined by a subjective visual impression of the Doppler spectrum analysis |
| Biasi 1998 | Less than 70% of the patients included were symptomatic |
| Binaghi 2001 | Study did not define the proportion of symptomatic patients |
| Birmpili 2018 | Study did not define the proportion of symptomatic patients |
| Blackshear 1984 | No direct comparison of DUS and DSA. Compared systolic peak frequency on DUS with pressure gradient measured at operation |
| Blackshear 1985 | Study did not define the proportion of symptomatic patients |
| Blackshear 1987 | Study did not define the proportion of symptomatic patients |
| Bladin 1995 | Accuracy of DUS was not assessed |
| Blasberg 1982 | Time between index test and alternative test was more than four weeks and the study did not define the proportion of symptomatic patients |
| Bloch 1979 | Preliminary paper of DUS technique; no objective criteria to estimate stenosis described ("Audible Doppler sounds from the flowmeter were distributed to a speaker and to a stereo tape recorder. A lateral projection image of the common carotid artery and its major branches was produced with this device"). |
| Boccalon 1985 | Study did not define the proportion of symptomatic patients |
| Bone 1976 | Preliminary paper of DUS technique; no objective criteria to estimate stenosis described and time between index test and alternative test was not specified |
| Bone 1988 | Time between index test and alternative test was not specified |
| Bonig 2000 | Time between index test and alternative test was not specified |
| Boyko 2018 | DUS and other angiographic modalities were performed within 6 months |
| Boyle 1995 | Time between index test and alternative test was more than four weeks. Accuracy of duplex was assessed compared with operative findings |
| Branas 1994 | Study did not define the proportion of symptomatic patients |
| Braun 2008 | Time between index test and alternative test was more than four weeks and the study did not define the proportion of symptomatic patients |
| Browman 1995 | Study did not define the proportion of symptomatic patients |
| Bucek 2006 | Study did not define the proportion of symptomatic patients |
| Buijs 1993 | Time between index test and alternative test was more than four weeks and less than 70% of the patients included were symptomatic |
| Bulger 2005 | Time between index test and alternative test was more than four weeks and less than 70% of the patients included were symptomatic |
| Busse 1974 | Preliminary paper of DUS technique; no objective criteria to estimate stenosis described |
| Busuttil 1996 | Less than 70% of the patients included were symptomatic |
| Caes 1987 | Preliminary paper of DUS technique; no objective criteria to estimate stenosis described (subjective visual impression of the degree of stenosis). Time between index test and alternative test was not specified |
| Cape 1984 | Study did not define the proportion of symptomatic patients |
| Cappetti 1996 | Study did not define the proportion of symptomatic patients |
| Carnicelli 2013 | Study did not define the proportion of symptomatic patients and patients were included if they underwent CTA within 6 months of a DUS |
| Carpenter 1995 | Study did not define the proportion of symptomatic patients |
| Carpenter 1996 | Study did not define the proportion of symptomatic patients |
| Carroll 1989 | Time between index test and alternative test was not specified |
| Chaix 1985 | Subjective criteria to estimate stenosis on DUS and the proportion of symptomatic patients were not specified |
| Chan 1982 | Study did not define the proportion of symptomatic patients and time between index test and alternatives tests was not specified |
| Chang 1995 | Study did not define the proportion of symptomatic patients and time between exams was up to 2 months. Another sample of patients was included and time between exams was up to 6 months |
| Chang 2002 | Less than 70% of the patients included were symptomatic |
| Chen 1997 | Less than 70% of the patients included were symptomatic |
| Chen 1998 | Study did not define the proportion of symptomatic patients |
| Chervu 1994 | Less than 70% of the patients included were symptomatic |
| Chowdhury 2011 | The exact criteria for determination of the degree of stenosis was not specified |
| Clevert 2006 | Less than 70% of the patients included were symptomatic |
| Clevert 2007 | Less than 70% of the patients included were symptomatic |
| Colhoun 1984 | Study did not define the proportion of symptomatic patients |
| Collins 2005 | Time between index test and alternative test was not specified |
| Colon 1979 | Preliminary paper of DUS technique; no objective criteria to estimate stenosis described and the study did not define the proportion of symptomatic patients |
| Connolly 1985 | Time between index test and alternative test was more than four weeks and the study did not define the proportion of symptomatic patients |
| Cooperberg 1992 | Study did not define the proportion of symptomatic patients |
| Corti 1998 | Less than 70% of the patients included were symptomatic (stroke, amayrosis fugax, transient ischemic attack). The exact criteria for determination of the degree of stenosis was not specified |
| Criswell 1998 | Study did not define the proportion of symptomatic patients |
| Crummy 1979 | Preliminary paper of DUS technique; no objective criteria to estimate stenosis described and time between index test and alternative test was not specified |
| Csanyi 1993 | Study did not define the proportion of symptomatic patients and the average time between DSA was 24.3 + 21.0 days |
| Curley 1998 | Time between index test and alternative test was not specified |
| Daiss 1984 | Time between index test and alternative test was not specified |
| Dalotto 1985 | Preliminary paper of DUS technique; no objective criteria to estimate stenosis described and did not define the proportion of symptomatic patients |
| Daolio 2019 | Time between index test and alternative test was more than four weeks and less than 70% of the patients included were symptomatic |
| Dawson 1991 | Less than 70% of the patients included were symptomatic |
| Dawson 1993 | Less than 70% of the patients included were symptomatic |
| Dean 2005 | The exact criteria for determination of the degree of stenosis was not specified |
| De la Cruz Cosme 2017 | The exact criteria for determination of the degree of stenosis was not specified |
| De Monti 2003 | Study did not define the proportion of symptomatic patients |
| Dharmasaroja 2018 | Time between index test and alternative test was more than four weeks and the study did not define the proportion of symptomatic patients |
| Dilley 1986 | Study did not define the proportion of symptomatic patients |
| Dinkel 2001 | Time between index test and alternative test was not specified and it stated that most of the participants had symptomatic cerebrovascular disease, but the proportion was not described |
| Dippel 1999 | Time between index test and alternative test was more than four weeks |
| Dix 2000 | Study did not define the proportion of symptomatic patients |
| Doyle 2012 | Study did not define the proportion of symptomatic patients |
| Doyle 2014 | Study did not define the proportion of symptomatic patients |
| Drevet 1997 | Less than 70% of the patients included were symptomatic |
| Eckmann 1990 | Less than 70% of the patients included were symptomatic |
| Ellis 1996 | Time between index test and alternative test was more than four weeks and the study did not define the proportion of symptomatic patients |
| Elmore 1998 | Study did not define the proportion of symptomatic patients |
| El‐Saden 2001 | Time between index test and alternative test was more than four weeks |
| Engelhardt 2005 | Less than 70% of the patients included were symptomatic |
| Erdoes 1996 | Study did not sufficiently provide data for 2 × 2 table production |
| Erickson 1989 | Time between index test and alternative test was more than four weeks and the study did not define the proportion of symptomatic patients |
| Felber 1985 | Time between index test and alternative test was more than four weeks and no the criteria used to estimate stenosis was not described |
| Fell 1981 | Time between index test and alternative test was more than four weeks and the study did not define the proportion of symptomatic patients |
| Filis 2002 | Less than 70% of the patients included were symptomatic |
| Fillinger 1996 | Time between index test and alternative test was more than four weeks and the study did not define the proportion of symptomatic patients |
| Finkenzeller 2008 | Time between index test and alternative test was not specified |
| Fischer 1985 | Preliminary paper of DUS technique; no objective criteria to estimate stenosis described and study did not define the proportion of symptomatic patients |
| Fischer 1985a | Preliminary paper of DUS technique; no objective criteria to estimate stenosis described and study did not define the proportion of symptomatic patients |
| Fix 1984 | Preliminary paper of DUS technique; no objective criteria to estimate stenosis described |
| Flanigan 1985 | The exact criteria for determination of the degree of stenosis was not specified |
| Fragata 2006 | Time between index test and alternative test was more than four weeks |
| French‐Sherry 2016 | Study did not define the proportion of symptomatic patients |
| Friese 2001 | Study did not define the proportion of symptomatic patients |
| Fujimoto 2006 | Study did not define the proportion of symptomatic patients |
| Furst 1993 | Time accepted between index test and alternative test was more than four weeks |
| Furst 1999 | Case‐control design |
| Geidel 1991 | Time between index test and alternative test was not specified |
| Geuder 1989 | Time between index test and alternative test was not specified and the exact criteria for determination of the degree of stenosis was not specified |
| Giraldi 1986 | Evaluated patients with occlusion of the internal carotid artery for information on the collateral circles (Willis and pre‐Willis) |
| Glover 1984 | Less than 70% of the patients included were symptomatic |
| Gmelin 1985 | Time between index test and alternative test was more than four weeks and the study did not define the proportion of symptomatic patients |
| Golledge 1996 | Time accepted between index test and alternative test was more than four weeks |
| Goodson 1987 | Time between index test and alternative test was not specified and the exact criteria for determination of the degree of stenosis was not specified |
| Gortler 1994 | Accuracy was determined by comparison with the surgical specimen |
| Grajo 2007 | Time accepted between index test and alternative test was more than four weeks |
| Grant 1999 | Less than 70% of the patients included were symptomatic |
| Grant 2000 | Time between index test and alternative test was more than four weeks and the study did not define the proportion of symptomatic patients |
| Griewing 1996 | Less than 70% of the patients included were symptomatic |
| Griffiths 1998 | Time between index test and alternative test was not specified and the exact criteria for determination of the degree of stenosis was not specified. |
| Griffiths 2001 | Time between index test and alternative test was not specified and the exact criteria for determination of the degree of stenosis was not specified |
| Hames 1981 | Preliminary paper of DUS technique; no objective criteria to estimate stenosis described |
| Hames 1985 | Preliminary paper of DUS technique; no objective criteria to estimate stenosis described |
| Harward 1986 | Time between index test and alternative test was more than four weeks and the study did not define the proportion of symptomatic patients |
| Hathout 2005 | The average time interval between sonography and arteriography was 2 months and the study did not define the proportion of symptomatic patients |
| Hathout 2015 | Time between index test and alternative test was more than four weeks and the study did not define the proportion of symptomatic patients |
| Herring 1984 | Study did not define the proportion of symptomatic patients |
| Hetzel 1993 | Time between index test and alternative test was more than four weeks and the study did not define the proportion of symptomatic patients |
| Hjelmgren 2018 | Evaluated non‐stenotic carotid plaques |
| Hobson 1980 | Preliminary paper of DUS technique; no objective criteria to estimate stenosis described |
| Honish 2005 | Time between index test and alternative test was not specified |
| Horrocks 1979 | Preliminary paper of DUS technique; no objective criteria to estimate stenosis described |
| Howard 1991 | Study did not define the proportion of symptomatic patients |
| Humphrey 1990 | Time between index test and alternative test was not specified |
| Hunink 1993 | Study did not define the proportion of symptomatic patients |
| Huston 1998 | Study did not define the proportion of symptomatic patients |
| Huston 2000 | Study did not define the proportion of symptomatic patients |
| Hutchison 1985 | Preliminary paper of DUS technique; no objective criteria to estimate stenosis described. Time between index test and alternative test was more than four weeks and the study did not define the proportion of symptomatic patients |
| Hwang 2002 | Study did not define the proportion of symptomatic patients |
| Hwang 2003 | Study did not define the proportion of symptomatic patients |
| Hwang 2003a | Time between index test and alternative test was more than four weeks and the study did not define the proportion of symptomatic patients |
| Jackson 1985 | Less than 70% of the patients included were symptomatic |
| Jackson 1998 | Less than 70% of the patients included were symptomatic |
| Jacobs 1985 | Study did not define the proportion of symptomatic patients |
| Jogestrand 2002 | Time between index test and alternative test was more than four weeks and study did not provide enough data for construction of a 2 x 2 table |
| Johnson 2000 | Time between index test and alternative test was not specified |
| Johnston 1982 | Less than 70% of the patients included were symptomatic |
| Johnston 1985 | Study did not define the proportion of symptomatic patients |
| Johnston 2001 | Less than 70% of the patients included were symptomatic |
| Jones 1982 | Preliminary paper of DUS technique; no objective criteria to estimate stenosis described |
| Juhel 1983 | Preliminary paper of DUS technique; no objective criteria to estimate stenosis described |
| Jung 2000 | Less than 70% of the patients included were symptomatic |
| Jung 2002 | Less than 70% of the patients included were symptomatic |
| Kagawa 1996 | Less than 70% of the patients included were symptomatic |
| Keberle 2001 | Study did not define the proportion of symptomatic patients |
| Keller 1978 | Preliminary paper of DUS technique; no objective criteria to estimate stenosis described and the study did not define the proportion of symptomatic patients |
| Kim 2016 | Time between index test and alternative test was more than four weeks |
| Kim 2018 | Time between index test and alternative test was more than four weeks |
| Kirsch 1994 | Study did not define the proportion of symptomatic patients |
| Knox 1982 | Study did not define the proportion of symptomatic patients and time accepted between index test and alternative test was more than four weeks |
| Koga 1983 | Less than 70% of the patients included were symptomatic |
| Koga 2001 | Study did not define the proportion of symptomatic patients |
| Korteweg 2008 | Time between index test and alternative test was more than four weeks |
| Krappel 2002 | Study did not define the proportion of symptomatic patients |
| Krasinski 2009 | Only included subjects without hemodynamically significant carotid stenosis and did not describe if they are symptomatic or asymptomatic. The objective was to evaluate potential spatial differences in carotid atherosclerosis measured using 3D MR and US |
| Kreske 1999 | Study did not define the proportion of symptomatic patients |
| Kuhn 1981 | Preliminary paper of DUS technique; no objective criteria to estimate stenosis described and study did not define the proportion of symptomatic patients |
| Kuhn 1984 | Less than 70% of the patients included were symptomatic |
| Labropoulos 1997 | Study did not define the proportion of symptomatic patients |
| Langlois 1983 | Study did not define the proportion of symptomatic patients |
| Lee 1992 | Study did not define the proportion of symptomatic patients |
| Lee 1996 | Time between index test and alternative test was more than four weeks |
| Lefemine 1986 | Preliminary paper of DUS technique and the study did not supply information on accuracy data |
| Leonardo 2003 | Less than 70% of the patients included were symptomatic |
| Levien 1985 | Time between index test and alternative test was not specified |
| Lewis 1980 | Preliminary paper of DUS technique; no objective criteria to estimate stenosis described |
| Lewis 2002 | Time between index test and alternative test was more than four weeks and study did not provide enough data for construction of a 2 x 2 table |
| Lindegaard 1984 | Time between index test and alternative test was not specified |
| Link 1997a | Time between index test and alternative test was not specified |
| Long 2001 | Less than 70% of the patients included were symptomatic |
| Lovelock 2003 | Study did not define the proportion of symptomatic patients |
| Ludwig 1984 | Preliminary paper of DUS technique; no objective criteria to estimate stenosis described. Time between index test and alternative test was not described and the study did not define the proportion of symptomatic patients |
| Lusby 1981 | Preliminary paper of DUS technique; no objective criteria to estimate stenosis described (subjective visual impression of the degree of stenosis). Time between index test and alternative test was not specified |
| Macharzina 2018 | Less than 70% of the patients included were symptomatic |
| Macheers 1986 | Study did not define the proportion of symptomatic patients |
| MacKenzie 2002 | Study did not define the proportion of symptomatic patients |
| Makaryus 2009 | Less than 70% of the patients included were symptomatic |
| Manga 1986 | Study did not define the proportion of symptomatic patients |
| Mansour 1995 | Less than 70% of the patients included were symptomatic |
| Marshall 1988 | Less than 70% of the patients included were symptomatic |
| Martin‐Conejero 2007 | Less than 70% of the patients included were symptomatic |
| Matos 2014 | Less than 70% of the patients included were symptomatic and time between index test and alternative test was more than four weeks |
| Mattle 1991 | Time between index test and alternative test was not specified and did not define the proportion of symptomatic patients |
| Mattos 1992 | Study did not define the proportion of symptomatic patients |
| Mattos 1994 | Less than 70% of the patients included were symptomatic |
| Matz 2017 | Time between index test and alternative test was not specified and did not define the proportion of symptomatic patients |
| McLaren 1996 | Study did not define the proportion of symptomatic patients |
| Mitchell 1991 | Time between index test and alternative test was not specified and did not define the proportion of symptomatic patients |
| Mittl 1994 | Time between index test and alternative test was not specified |
| Modaresi 1999 | Study did not define the proportion of symptomatic patients |
| Moll 2000 | Time between index test and alternative test was not specified and did not define the proportion of symptomatic patients |
| Moll 2001 | Time between index test and alternative test was not specified and did not define the proportion of symptomatic patients |
| Moneta 1993 | Study did not define the proportion of symptomatic patients |
| Moore 1986 | Study did not define the proportion of symptomatic patients |
| Moore 1988 | Preliminary paper of DUS technique; no objective criteria to estimate stenosis described. The study did not define the proportion of symptomatic patients |
| Muller 2015 | Study did not define the proportion of symptomatic patients |
| Murie 1984 | Preliminary paper of DUS technique; no objective criteria to estimate stenosis described. Time between index test and alternative test was more than four weeks |
| Muto 1996 | Less than 70% of the patients included were symptomatic |
| Neale 1994 | Study did not define the proportion of symptomatic patients |
| Neff 2005 | Study did not define the proportion of symptomatic patients |
| Neschis 2001 | Study did not define the proportion of symptomatic patients |
| New 2001 | Study did not define the proportion of symptomatic patients and time between index test and alternative test was more than four weeks |
| Nichtweiss 1987 | Time between index test and alternative test was not specified and the method of calculating the carotid stenosis was not described |
| Nonent 2004 | Less than 70% of the patients included were symptomatic |
| Nonent 2011 | Study did not define the proportion of symptomatic patients |
| Nordal 1993 | Time between index test and alternative test was not specified and the method of calculating the carotid stenosis was not described |
| Norrving 1981 | Preliminary paper of DUS technique; no objective criteria to estimate stenosis described. Time between index test and alternative test was not specified |
| Norrving 1985 | Study did not define the proportion of symptomatic patients and time between index test and alternative test was not specified |
| Nowak 2007 | Same patients from Jogestrand 2002. Time between index test and alternative test was more than four weeks |
| O'Callaghan 2011 | Study did not define the proportion of symptomatic patients |
| O'Leary 1987 | Study did not define the proportion of symptomatic patients |
| Ohm 2005 | Less than 70% of the patients included were symptomatic |
| Orgles 1999 | Study did not define the proportion of symptomatic patients |
| Paciaroni 2003 | The exact criteria for determination of the degree of stenosis was not specified |
| Padayachee 1982 | Less than 70% of the patients included were symptomatic |
| Padayachee 1997 | Study did not define the proportion of symptomatic patients |
| Paivansalo 1996 | Time between index test and alternative test was more than four weeks |
| Patel 1995 | Less than 70% of the patients included were symptomatic ("There were 74 symptomatic carotid bifurcations (42%)") |
| Patel 2002 | Time accepted between index test and alternative test was more than four weeks ("The median time lapse between DUS and the other three imaging techniques was 33 days (range 27 to 185 days)") |
| Pelz 2015 | Less than 70% of the patients included were symptomatic |
| Petisco 2015 | Less than 70% of the patients included were symptomatic |
| Pfister 2009 | Study did not define the proportion of symptomatic patients |
| Poindexter 1991 | Less than 70% of the patients included were symptomatic |
| Polak 1989 | Study did not define the proportion of symptomatic patients |
| Polak 1992 | Less than 70% of the patients included were symptomatic |
| Polak 1993 | MRA and DUS were used in combination. There was no DUS alone accuracy data and time between index test and alternative test was more than four weeks |
| Portilla 2010 | Study did not define the proportion of symptomatic patients |
| Puzich 1986 | Preliminary paper of DUS technique; no objective criteria to estimate stenosis described |
| Py 2001 | Time between index test and alternative test was more than four weeks |
| Qureshi 2001 | Study did not define the proportion of symptomatic patients |
| Ratliff 1985 | Study did not define the proportion of symptomatic patients |
| Ricotta 1987 | Study did not define the proportion of symptomatic patients |
| Riles 1992 | Study did not define the proportion of symptomatic patients |
| Rodrigus 1995 | Study did not define the proportion of symptomatic patients |
| Saba 2008 | Study did not define the proportion of symptomatic patients |
| Saba 2010 | Study did not define the proportion of symptomatic patients |
| Sabeti 2004 | Less than 70% of the patients included were symptomatic |
| Saia 1981 | Preliminary paper of DUS technique; no objective criteria to estimate stenosis described. Study did not define the proportion of symptomatic patients |
| Samarzija 2018 | Study did not define the proportion of symptomatic patients and time between index test and alternative test was more than four weeks |
| Sameshima 1999 | Study did not provide the method of calculating the degree of stenosis and time between index test and alternative test was not specified |
| Saouaf 1998 | Less than 70% of the patients included were symptomatic |
| Satiani 1988 | Study did not define the proportion of symptomatic patients |
| Savic 2010 | Time between index test and alternative test was not specified |
| Senant 1984 | Preliminary paper of DUS technique; no objective criteria to estimate stenosis described |
| Serfaty 2000 | Less than 70% of the patients included were symptomatic |
| Shaalan 2008 | Less than 70% of the patients included were symptomatic |
| Shakhnovich 2010 | Study did not define the proportion of symptomatic patients |
| Sillesen 1988 | Preliminary paper of DUS technique; no objective criteria to estimate stenosis described. Study did not define the proportion of symptomatic patients |
| Sillesen 1991 | Less than 70% of the patients included were symptomatic |
| Sitzer 1993 | Criteria to determine carotid stenosis was not based on velocity criteria and time between tests was not described |
| Slovut 2010 | Study did not define the proportion of symptomatic patients |
| Soulez 1999 | Study did not define the proportion of symptomatic patients |
| Srinivasan 1995 | Time between index test and alternative test was not specified |
| Staikov 2000 | Time between index test and alternative test was more than four weeks |
| Staikov 2002 | Study did not define the proportion of symptomatic patients |
| Staikov 2004 | Time between index test and alternative test was more than four weeks |
| Stavenow 1987 | Less than 70% of the patients included were symptomatic |
| Stefanini 2012 | Time between index test and alternative test was more than four weeks |
| Steger 1995 | Less than 70% of the patients included were symptomatic |
| Steinke 1990 | Less than 70% of the patients included were symptomatic |
| Steinke 1997 | Less than 70% of the patients included were symptomatic |
| Sumner 1979 | Preliminary paper of DUS technique; no objective criteria to estimate stenosis described |
| Sumner 1982 | Less than 70% of the patients included were symptomatic |
| Tarnawski 1990 | Validation of MRA technique using a pulsatile phantom and in vivo healthy asymptomatic subjects |
| Tateishi 2013 | Study did not define the proportion of symptomatic patients |
| Tian 2016 | Study did not define the proportion of symptomatic patients |
| Titi 2007 | Time between index test and alternative test was not specified |
| Tokunaga 2016 | Time between index test and alternative test was not specified |
| Tola 2004 | Asymptomatic patients |
| Torvaldsen 1985 | Less than 70% of the patients included were symptomatic |
| Tschammler 1991 | Study did not define the proportion of symptomatic patients and time between index test and alternative test was not specified |
| Turnipseed 1982 | Preliminary paper of DUS technique; no objective criteria to estimate stenosis described. |
| Turnipseed 1993a | Time between index test and alternative test was not specified |
| Utz 1983 | Study did not define the proportion of symptomatic patients |
| Vaisman 1986 | Study did not define the proportion of symptomatic patients and time between index test and alternative test was not specified |
| Van Prehn 2008 | Study did not define the proportion of symptomatic patients |
| Vit 2003 | Study did not define the proportion of symptomatic patients |
| Von Arbin 1983 | Preliminary paper of DUS technique; no objective criteria to estimate stenosis described. Study did not define the proportion of symptomatic patients |
| Wardlaw 2005 | Time between index test and alternative test was not specified |
| Weaver 1980 | Preliminary paper of DUS technique; no objective criteria to estimate stenosis described (subjective visual impression of the degree of stenosis). Study did not define the proportion of symptomatic patients |
| Weaver 1980a | Preliminary paper of DUS technique; no objective criteria to estimate stenosis described (subjective visual impression of the degree of stenosis). Study did not define the proportion of symptomatic patients |
| Weintraub 1985 | Preliminary paper of DUS technique; no objective criteria to estimate stenosis described and compared DUS results with postoperative endarterectomy specimens. Study did not provide enough data for construction of a 2 x 2 table |
| Wessels 2004 | Less than 70% of the patients included were symptomatic |
| Wetzner 1984 | Study did not define the proportion of symptomatic patients |
| Wikstrom 2002 | Study did not define the proportion of symptomatic patients and time between index test and alternative test was not specified |
| Wilkerson 1991 | Less than 70% of the patients included were symptomatic |
| Wilterdink 1996 | Study did not define the proportion of symptomatic patients and time between index test and alternative test was not specified |
| Winkelaar 1999 | Study did not define the proportion of symptomatic patients |
| Withers 1990 | Study did not define the proportion of symptomatic patients and time between index test and alternative test was not specified |
| Wolverson 1983 | Preliminary paper of DUS technique; no objective criteria to estimate stenosis described |
| Wolverson 1985 | Preliminary paper of DUS technique; no objective criteria to estimate stenosis described |
| Worthy 1997 | Time between index test and alternative test was not specified |
| Yiu‐Tong 1985 | Less than 70% of the patients included were symptomatic |
| Young 1992 | Time between index test and alternative test was not specified |
| Young 1994 | Did not use a valid method for determining the degree of stenosis on DSA. (quote: "We have relied on experienced radiologists reporting their visual impression of the degree of stenosis present, as we believe that this is the method most commonly used in routine clinical practice.") |
| Yurdakul 2004 | Study did not define the proportion of symptomatic patients and time between index test and alternative test was not specified |
| Yurdakul 2004a | Asymptomatic patients |
| Zananiri 1993 | Asymptomatic patients |
| Zanette 1982 | Preliminary paper of DUS technique; no objective criteria to estimate stenosis described |
| Zanette 1987 | Preliminary paper of DUS technique; no objective criteria to estimate stenosis described |
| Zierler 1990 | Asymptomatic patients |
| Zorzon 1987 | Study did not define the proportion of symptomatic patients |
| Zwicker 1987 | Less than 70% of the patients included were symptomatic |
| Zwiebel 1983 | Less than 70% of the patients included were symptomatic |
| Zwiebel 1985 | Less than 70% of the patients included were symptomatic |
CTA: computed tomography angiography DSA: digital subtraction angiography MR: magnetic resonance MRA: magnetic resonance angiography US: ultrasound