Our systematic evaluate follows the rules outlined within the Most popular Reporting Objects for Systematic Critiques and Meta-Analyses for Protocols (PRISMA-P) [9] and has been registered with the identifier INPLASY202440027.
Inclusion and exclusion standards
The inclusion standards have been as follows: (1) Inhabitants: sufferers with extreme ICA stenosis, outlined as 70–99% stenosis [10]; (2) Intervention: use of CTA for the analysis of extreme ICA stenosis; (3) Comparability: DSA, which is the “gold commonplace” for diagnosing ICA stenosis; and (4) Consequence: true constructive (TP), true damaging (TN), false−constructive (FP), and false−damaging (FN) charges for diagnosing extreme ICA stenosis.
The exclusion standards have been as follows: (1) duplicate publications; (2) literature with out entry to related uncooked information, corresponding to research the place TP, TN, FP, and FN charges can’t be instantly or not directly obtained; and (3) non-Chinese language or non-English literature.
Search technique
The PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, CNKI, Wanfang, VIP, and CBM databases have been searched from inception to March 21, 2024, to determine publicly obtainable Chinese language and English literature on the CTA analysis of extreme ICA stenosis. A mixture of topic headings and free textual content phrases was used for the search. The search phrases included CT angiography, CT angiographies, computed tomographic angiography, computed tomography angiographies, carotid stenosis, carotid stenoses, carotid artery narrowing, carotid artery narrowing, carotid artery stenosis, carotid artery stenoses, carotid artery plaque, carotid artery plaques, and carotid artery ulcerating plaque. For instance, the search technique for PubMed was as follows: ((CT angiography[MeSH Terms]) OR (((CT angiographies[Title/Abstract]) OR (computed tomographic angiography[Title/Abstract])) OR (computed tomography angiographies[Title/Abstract]))) AND ((carotid stenosis[MeSH Terms]) OR ((((((((carotid stenoses[Title/Abstract]) OR (carotid artery narrowing[Title/Abstract])) OR (carotid artery narrowings[Title/Abstract])) OR (carotid artery stenosis[Title/Abstract])) OR (carotid artery stenoses[Title/Abstract])) OR (carotid artery plaque[Title/Abstract])) OR (carotid artery plaques[Title/Abstract])) OR (carotid artery ulcerating plaque[Title/Abstract]))). Moreover, to determine additional related research, the references of the included articles have been additionally screened to make sure compliance with the inclusion standards.
Literature screening and information extraction
Two researchers independently screened the literature and extracted data in keeping with the preestablished inclusion and exclusion standards. Cross-checking was carried out to make sure accuracy. Any discrepancies have been resolved via dialogue or session with a 3rd researcher if mandatory. The extracted data included the next: (1) normal data: first creator, publication 12 months, nation, pattern measurement, intercourse, age, variety of arteries, and sort of CT system; and (2) final result indicators: TP, FP, FN, and TN charges.
High quality evaluation
The standard of the research included within the meta-analysis was assessed utilizing the High quality Evaluation of Diagnostic Accuracy Research (QUADAS) instrument [11].
Statistical evaluation
Knowledge evaluation was carried out utilizing Stata 17.0 and Meta-Disc 1.4 software program. Cochran’s Q take a look at and the I2 statistic have been used to evaluate heterogeneity amongst research. If P < 0.05 and I2 > 50%, indicating vital heterogeneity, a random results mannequin was chosen; in any other case, a hard and fast results mannequin was used [12]. The mixed sensitivity, specificity, constructive probability ratio, damaging probability ratio, and diagnostic odds ratio with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) have been calculated for the included research. Forest plots and SROC curves have been generated, and the world below the curve (AUC) was calculated. If heterogeneity was current, the presence of a threshold impact was assessed utilizing the Spearman correlation coefficient in Meta−Disc 1.4 (a powerful constructive correlation signifies a threshold impact). Moreover, meta−regression evaluation was carried out to discover the sources of heterogeneity. Subgroup analyses have been carried out to discover variations in sensitivity and specificity between subgroups. Deeks’ funnel plot was used to evaluate publication bias utilizing Stata 17.0, and the P worth for publication bias was obtained instantly from this take a look at, with P < 0.05 indicating the presence of publication bias.
Evaluation of proof high quality
To evaluate the knowledge of proof, we employed the Grading of Suggestions, Evaluation, Growth and Evaluations (GRADE) framework. This methodology evaluates the standard of proof throughout the domains of threat of bias, consistency, directness, precision, and publication bias. Every area is rated as excessive, reasonable, low, or very low [37].
