title: Ultrasound protocols to measure carotid intima-media thickness: a post-hoc analysis of the OPAL study.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  Ultrasound protocols to measure carotid intima-media thickness (CIMT) differ in the number of carotid walls, segments and angles measured. No published evidence is available to help decide which approach is best, i.e. the most reproducible and providing the largest CIMT progression rate measured with highest precision. We compared different ultrasound protocols in a post-hoc analysis in the 'Osteoporosis Prevention and Arterial effects of tiboLone' (OPAL) study, a 3-year randomized controlled trial among healthy postmenopausal women.
  
  
  METHODS
  Based on combinations of 60 CIMT measurements per participant (two sides, two walls, three segments, five angles), 66 theoretical protocols were constructed. Each protocol was assessed and ranked on: (1) reproducibility (intra-class correlation (ICC), mean difference of duplicate scans) and (2) CIMT progression rate and its precision (standard error) in the placebo group.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Duplicate scans at baseline and end of study were available for 675 women (89% of 759 subjects). ICC ranged from 0.69 to 0.88. Mean difference in CIMT of duplicate scans and its standard deviation, ranged from 0.0010 to 0.0137 mm and from 0.0561 to 0.1770, respectively. CIMT rate of progression ranged from -0.0001 to 0.0113 mm/year. The protocols with highest reproducibility and highest CIMT progression-precision were mean common CIMT protocols measuring both near and far wall at > or = 2 angles. The mean maximum protocol measuring three segments at > or = 2 angles performed best, yet with lower estimates as for common CIMT protocols.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  In healthy middle-aged subjects mean common CIMT protocols that include measurements at both near and far walls at multiple (> or = 2) angles provide highest reproducibility combined with largest estimates of CIMT progression measured with high precision and are to be recommended in this population.
authors.affiliation: Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care (www.juliuscenter.nl), University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
authors.forename: S
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Dogan
authors.forename: Y
authors.initials: Y
authors.lastname: Plantinga
authors.forename: G W
authors.initials: GW
authors.lastname: Evans
authors.forename: R
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Meijer
authors.forename: D E
authors.initials: DE
authors.lastname: Grobbee
authors.forename: M L
authors.initials: ML
authors.lastname: Bots
mesh_terms: D002339:Carotid Arteries / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging* / Q000187:drug effects; D004311:Double-Blind Method; D004967:Estrogens / Q000008:administration & dosage / Q000494:pharmacology*; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D017258:Medroxyprogesterone Acetate / Q000008:administration & dosage / Q000494:pharmacology*; D009652:Norpregnenes / Q000008:administration & dosage / Q000494:pharmacology*; D010919:Placebos; D015203:Reproducibility of Results; D017539:Tunica Intima / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging* / Q000187:drug effects; D014463:Ultrasonography / Q000379:methods
chemical_list: D004967:Estrogens; D009652:Norpregnenes; D010919:Placebos; D017258:Medroxyprogesterone Acetate; C027385:tibolone