Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,660

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Multidetector Computed Tomography for Acute Pulmonary Embolism

Open access
Stein, Paul D., Fowler, Sarah E., Goodman, Lawrence R., Gottschalk, Alexander, Hales, Charles A., Hull, Russell D., Leeper, Kenneth V., Popovich, John, Quinn, Deborah A., Sos, Thomas A., Sostman, H. Dirk, Tapson, Victor F., Wakefield, Thomas W., Weg, John G., Woodard, Pamela K.·2006·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The accuracy of multidetector computed tomographic angiography (CTA) for the diagnosis of acute pulmonary embolism has not been determined conclusively. METHODS: The Prospective Investigation of Pulmonary Embolism Diagnosis II trial was a prospective, multicenter investigation of the accuracy of multidetector CTA alone and combined with venous-phase imaging (CTA-CTV) for the diagnosis of acute pulmonary embolism. We used a composite reference test to confirm or rule out the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism. RESULTS: Among 824 patients with a reference diagnosis and a completed CT study, CTA was inconclusive in 51 because of poor image quality. Excluding such inconclusive studies, the sensitivity of CTA was 83 percent and the specificity was 96 percent. Positive predictive values were 96 percent with a concordantly high or low probability on clinical assessment, 92 percent with an intermediate probability on clinical assessment, and nondiagnostic if clinical probability was discordant. CTA-CTV was inconclusive in 87 of 824 patients because the image quality of either CTA or CTV was poor. The sensitivity of CTA-CTV for pulmonary embolism was 90 percent, and specificity was 95 percent. CTA-CTV was also nondiagnostic with a discordant clinical probability. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with suspected pulmonary embolism, multidetector CTA-CTV has a higher diagnostic sensitivity than does CTA alone, with similar specificity. The predictive value of either CTA or CTA-CTV is high with a concordant clinical assessment, but additional testing is necessary when the clinical probability is inconsistent with the imaging results.

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/nejmoa052367

Cites

3 of 3 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 3 references

Cited by

See all 1,660

Metadata

Authors
Stein, P. D., Fowler, S. E., Goodman, L. R., Gottschalk, A., Hales, C. A., Hull, R. D., Leeper, K. V., Popovich, J., Quinn, D. A., Sos, T. A., Sostman, H. D., Tapson, V. F., Wakefield, T. W., Weg, J. G., & Woodard, P. K.
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
2006-06
Volume
354
Issue
22
Pages
2317-2327
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W2115055475
Cited by
1,660
References
3
FWCI
85.56
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: Multidetector Computed Tomography for Acute Pulmonary Embolism. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejmoa052367
The paper
Stein, P. D., Fowler, S. E., Goodman, L. R., Gottschalk, A., Hales, C. A., Hull, R. D., Leeper, K. V., Popovich, J., Quinn, D. A., Sos, T. A., Sostman, H. D., Tapson, V. F., Wakefield, T. W., Weg, J. G., & Woodard, P. K. (2006). Multidetector Computed Tomography for Acute Pulmonary Embolism. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa052367

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.