Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 482

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 9 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Diagnosis of Pulmonary Embolism with Magnetic Resonance Angiography

Open access
Meaney, James F.M., Weg, John G., Chenevert, Thomas L., Stafford-Johnson, David, Hamilton, Brian H., Prince, Martin R.·1997·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Diagnosing pulmonary embolism may be difficult, because there is no reliable noninvasive imaging method. We compared a new noninvasive method, gadolinium-enhanced pulmonary magnetic resonance angiography, with standard pulmonary angiography for diagnosing pulmonary embolism. METHODS: A total of 30 consecutive patients with suspected pulmonary embolism underwent both standard pulmonary angiography and magnetic resonance angiography during the pulmonary arterial phase at the time of an intravenous bolus of gadolinium. All magnetic resonance images were reviewed for the presence or absence of pulmonary emboli by three independent reviewers who were unaware of the findings on standard angiograms. RESULTS: Pulmonary embolism was detected by standard pulmonary angiography in 8 of the 30 patients in whom pulmonary embolism was suspected. All 5 lobar emboli and 16 of 17 segmental emboli identified on standard angiograms were also identified on magnetic resonance images. Two of the three reviewers reported one false positive magnetic resonance angiogram each. As compared with standard pulmonary angiography, the three sets of readings had sensitivities of 100, 87, and 75 percent and specificities of 95, 100, and 95 percent, respectively. The interobserver correlation was good (k=0.57 to 0.83 for all vessels, 0.49 to 1.0 for main and lobar vessels, and 0.40 to 0.81 for segmental vessels). CONCLUSIONS: In this preliminary study, gadolinium-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography of the pulmonary arteries, as compared with conventional pulmonary angiography, had high sensitivity and specificity for the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism. This new technique shows promise as a noninvasive method of diagnosing pulmonary embolism without the need for ionizing radiation or iodinated contrast material.

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 · 10.1056/nejm199705153362004

Cites

9 of 9 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 9 references

Cited by

See all 482

Metadata

Authors
Meaney, J. F. M., Weg, J. G., Chenevert, T. L., Stafford-Johnson, D., Hamilton, B. H., & Prince, M. R.
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
1997-05-15
Volume
336
Issue
20
Pages
1422-1427
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W2317643804
Cited by
482
References
9
FWCI
26.36
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: Diagnosis of Pulmonary Embolism with Magnetic Resonance Angiography. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejm199705153362004
The paper
Meaney, J. F. M., Weg, J. G., Chenevert, T. L., Stafford-Johnson, D., Hamilton, B. H., & Prince, M. R. (1997). Diagnosis of Pulmonary Embolism with Magnetic Resonance Angiography. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejm199705153362004

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.