“…Worth noting, several studies included in this review (n=24 out of 161 studies) did not find associations between traditional risk factors and C-IMTp or favorable changes in C-IMTp with interventions that reduce the alluded risk factors. However, a detailed scrutiny of these studies allowed us to identify, in most cases, one or more explanations to these negative results: a) the population was very young and had baseline IMT in the normal range [51,64]; b) the time of observation was relatively short (1 year) to detect significant associations or changes in the sample investigated [51,64,93,94,167] and/or c) IMTp was evaluated only in the distal 1 cm of the common carotid artery, a segment hardly affected by atherosclerosis [24,40,42,43,51,64,81,84,92,122,123]. Actually, negative studies without one or more of these features (3 observational[49,74,112] and 5 interventional [56,57,95,101,152] were uncommon, which underline the importance of an attentive consideration of methodological aspects in the design of studies aimed to ascertain the clinical significance of C-IMTp.…”