Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 346

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 35 of the 35 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Use of Coronary Computed Tomographic Angiography to Guide Management of Patients With Coronary Disease

Open access
Williams, Michelle C., Hunter, Amanda, Shah, Anoop S.V., Assi, Valentina, Lewis, Stephanie, Smith, Joel, Berry, Colin, Boon, Nicholas A., Clark, Elizabeth, Flather, Marcus, Forbes, John, McLean, Scott, Roditi, Giles, van Beek, Edwin J.R., Timmis, Adam D., Newby, David E.·2016·Journal of the American College of Cardiology

Abstract

BACKGROUND: In a prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled trial, 4,146 patients were randomized to receive standard care or standard care plus coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA). OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to explore the consequences of CCTA-assisted diagnosis on invasive coronary angiography, preventive treatments, and clinical outcomes. METHODS: In post hoc analyses, we assessed changes in invasive coronary angiography, preventive treatments, and clinical outcomes using national electronic health records. RESULTS: Despite similar overall rates (409 vs. 401; p = 0.451), invasive angiography was less likely to demonstrate normal coronary arteries (20 vs. 56; hazard ratios [HRs]: 0.39 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.23 to 0.68]; p < 0.001) but more likely to show obstructive coronary artery disease (283 vs. 230; HR: 1.29 [95% CI: 1.08 to 1.55]; p = 0.005) in those allocated to CCTA. More preventive therapies (283 vs. 74; HR: 4.03 [95% CI: 3.12 to 5.20]; p < 0.001) were initiated after CCTA, with each drug commencing at a median of 48 to 52 days after clinic attendance. From the median time for preventive therapy initiation (50 days), fatal and nonfatal myocardial infarction was halved in patients allocated to CCTA compared with those assigned to standard care (17 vs. 34; HR: 0.50 [95% CI: 0.28 to 0.88]; p = 0.020). Cumulative 6-month costs were slightly higher with CCTA: difference $462 (95% CI: $303 to $621). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with suspected angina due to coronary heart disease, CCTA leads to more appropriate use of invasive angiography and alterations in preventive therapies that were associated with a halving of fatal and non-fatal myocardial infarction. (Scottish COmputed Tomography of the HEART Trial [SCOT-HEART]; NCT01149590).

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 · 10.1016/j.jacc.2016.02.026

Cites

35 of 35 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 35 references

Cited by

See all 346

Metadata

Authors
Williams, M. C., Hunter, A., Shah, A. S. V., Assi, V., Lewis, S., Smith, J., Berry, C., Boon, N. A., Clark, E., Flather, M., Forbes, J., McLean, S., Roditi, G., van Beek, E. J. R., Timmis, A. D., & Newby, D. E.
Venue
Journal of the American College of Cardiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-04
Volume
67
Issue
15
Pages
1759-1768
ISSN
0735-1097 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2322618834
Cited by
346
References
35
FWCI
41.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

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: Use of Coronary Computed Tomographic Angiography to Guide Management of Patients With Coronary Disease. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.jacc.2016.02.026
The paper
Williams, M. C., Hunter, A., Shah, A. S. V., Assi, V., Lewis, S., Smith, J., Berry, C., Boon, N. A., Clark, E., Flather, M., Forbes, J., McLean, S., Roditi, G., van Beek, E. J. R., Timmis, A. D., & Newby, D. E. (2016). Use of Coronary Computed Tomographic Angiography to Guide Management of Patients With Coronary Disease. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2016.02.026

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.