Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,114

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Cardiovascular magnetic resonance and single-photon emission computed tomography for diagnosis of coronary heart disease (CE-MARC): a prospective trial

Open access
Greenwood, John P, Maredia, Neil, Younger, John F, Brown, Julia M, Nixon, Jane, Everett, Colin C, Bijsterveld, Petra, Ridgway, John P, Radjenovic, Aleksandra, Dickinson, Catherine J, Ball, Stephen G, Plein, Sven·2012·The Lancet

Abstract

Summary Background In patients with suspected coronary heart disease, single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) is the most widely used test for the assessment of myocardial ischaemia, but its diagnostic accuracy is reported to be variable and it exposes patients to ionising radiation. The aim of this study was to establish the diagnostic accuracy of a multiparametric cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) protocol with x-ray coronary angiography as the reference standard, and to compare CMR with SPECT, in patients with suspected coronary heart disease. Methods In this prospective trial patients with suspected angina pectoris and at least one cardiovascular risk factor were scheduled for CMR, SPECT, and invasive x-ray coronary angiography. CMR consisted of rest and adenosine stress perfusion, cine imaging, late gadolinium enhancement, and MR coronary angiography. Gated adenosine stress and rest SPECT used 99mTc tetrofosmin. The primary outcome was diagnostic accuracy of CMR. This trial is registered at controlled-trials.com, number ISRCTN77246133. Findings In the 752 recruited patients, 39% had significant CHD as identified by x-ray angiography. For multiparametric CMR the sensitivity was 86·5% (95% CI 81·8–90·1), specificity 83·4% (79·5–86·7), positive predictive value 77·2%, (72·1–81·6) and negative predictive value 90·5% (87·1–93·0). The sensitivity of SPECT was 66·5% (95% CI 60·4–72·1), specificity 82·6% (78·5–86·1), positive predictive value 71·4% (65·3–76·9), and negative predictive value 79·1% (74·8–82·8). The sensitivity and negative predictive value of CMR and SPECT differed significantly (p<0·0001 for both) but specificity and positive predictive value did not (p=0·916 and p=0·061, respectively). Interpretation CE-MARC is the largest, prospective, real world evaluation of CMR and has established CMR's high diagnostic accuracy in coronary heart disease and CMR's superiority over SPECT. It should be adopted more widely than at present for the investigation of coronary heart disease. Funding British Heart Foundation.

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/s0140-6736(11)61335-4

Cites

4 of 4 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 4 references

Cited by

See all 1,114

Metadata

Authors
Greenwood, J. P., Maredia, N., Younger, J. F., Brown, J. M., Nixon, J., Everett, C. C., Bijsterveld, P., Ridgway, J. P., Radjenovic, A., Dickinson, C. J., Ball, S. G., & Plein, S.
Venue
The Lancet
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2012-02
Volume
379
Issue
9814
Pages
453-460
ISSN
  • 0099-5355 (ISSN-L)
  • 0140-6736
OpenAlex
W2131973318
Cited by
1,114
References
4
FWCI
69.63
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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: Cardiovascular magnetic resonance and single-photon emission computed tomography for diagnosis of coronary heart disease (CE-MARC): a prospective trial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s0140-6736(11)61335-4
The paper
Greenwood, J. P., Maredia, N., Younger, J. F., Brown, J. M., Nixon, J., Everett, C. C., Bijsterveld, P., Ridgway, J. P., Radjenovic, A., Dickinson, C. J., Ball, S. G., & Plein, S. (2012). Cardiovascular magnetic resonance and single-photon emission computed tomography for diagnosis of coronary heart disease (CE-MARC): a prospective trial. The Lancet. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(11)61335-4

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.