Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 824

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Comparison of MRI and CT for Detection of Acute Intracerebral Hemorrhage

Kidwell, Chelsea S.·2004·JAMA

Abstract

CONTEXT: Noncontrast computed tomography (CT) is the standard brain imaging study for the initial evaluation of patients with acute stroke symptoms. Multimodal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has been proposed as an alternative to CT in the emergency stroke setting. However, the accuracy of MRI relative to CT for the detection of hyperacute intracerebral hemorrhage has not been demonstrated. OBJECTIVE: To compare the accuracy of MRI and CT for detection of acute intracerebral hemorrhage in patients presenting with acute focal stroke symptoms. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: A prospective, multicenter study was performed at 2 stroke centers (UCLA Medical Center and Suburban Hospital, Bethesda, Md), between October 2000 and February 2003. Patients presenting with focal stroke symptoms within 6 hours of onset underwent brain MRI followed by noncontrast CT. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Acute intracerebral hemorrhage and any intracerebral hemorrhage diagnosed on gradient recalled echo (GRE) MRI and CT scans by a consensus of 4 blinded readers. RESULTS: The study was stopped early, after 200 patients were enrolled, when it became apparent at the time of an unplanned interim analysis that MRI was detecting cases of hemorrhagic transformation not detected by CT. For the diagnosis of any hemorrhage, MRI was positive in 71 patients with CT positive in 29 (P<.001). For the diagnosis of acute hemorrhage, MRI and CT were equivalent (96% concordance). Acute hemorrhage was diagnosed in 25 patients on both MRI and CT. In 4 other patients, acute hemorrhage was present on MRI but not on the corresponding CT--each of these 4 cases was interpreted as hemorrhagic transformation of an ischemic infarct. In 3 patients, regions interpreted as acute hemorrhage on CT were interpreted as chronic hemorrhage on MRI. In 1 patient, subarachnoid hemorrhage was diagnosed on CT but not on MRI. In 49 patients, chronic hemorrhage, most often microbleeds, was visualized on MRI but not on CT. CONCLUSION: MRI may be as accurate as CT for the detection of acute hemorrhage in patients presenting with acute focal stroke symptoms and is more accurate than CT for the detection of chronic intracerebral hemorrhage.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.292.15.1823

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Cited by

See all 824

Metadata

Authors
Kidwell, C. S.
Venue
JAMA
Published
2004-10-20
Volume
292
Issue
15
Pages
1823
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
OpenAlex
W2123004766
Cited by
824
References
2
FWCI
20.67
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Comparison of MRI and CT for Detection of Acute Intracerebral Hemorrhage. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.292.15.1823
The paper
Kidwell, C. S. (2004). Comparison of MRI and CT for Detection of Acute Intracerebral Hemorrhage. JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.292.15.1823

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.