Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,815

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

Diagnostic Performance of Coronary Angiography by 64-Row CT

Miller, Julie M., Rochitte, Carlos E., Dewey, Marc, Arbab-Zadeh, Armin, Niinuma, Hiroyuki, Gottlieb, Ilan, Paul, Narinder, Clouse, Melvin E., Shapiro, Edward P., Hoe, John, Lardo, Albert C., Bush, David E., de Roos, Albert, Cox, Christopher, Brinker, Jeffery, Lima, João A.C.·2008·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The accuracy of multidetector computed tomographic (CT) angiography involving 64 detectors has not been well established. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter study to examine the accuracy of 64-row, 0.5-mm multidetector CT angiography as compared with conventional coronary angiography in patients with suspected coronary artery disease. Nine centers enrolled patients who underwent calcium scoring and multidetector CT angiography before conventional coronary angiography. In 291 patients with calcium scores of 600 or less, segments 1.5 mm or more in diameter were analyzed by means of CT and conventional angiography at independent core laboratories. Stenoses of 50% or more were considered obstructive. The area under the receiver-operating-characteristic curve (AUC) was used to evaluate diagnostic accuracy relative to that of conventional angiography and subsequent revascularization status, whereas disease severity was assessed with the use of the modified Duke Coronary Artery Disease Index. RESULTS: A total of 56% of patients had obstructive coronary artery disease. The patient-based diagnostic accuracy of quantitative CT angiography for detecting or ruling out stenoses of 50% or more according to conventional angiography revealed an AUC of 0.93 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.90 to 0.96), with a sensitivity of 85% (95% CI, 79 to 90), a specificity of 90% (95% CI, 83 to 94), a positive predictive value of 91% (95% CI, 86 to 95), and a negative predictive value of 83% (95% CI, 75 to 89). CT angiography was similar to conventional angiography in its ability to identify patients who subsequently underwent revascularization: the AUC was 0.84 (95% CI, 0.79 to 0.88) for multidetector CT angiography and 0.82 (95% CI, 0.77 to 0.86) for conventional angiography. A per-vessel analysis of 866 vessels yielded an AUC of 0.91 (95% CI, 0.88 to 0.93). Disease severity ascertained by CT and conventional angiography was well correlated (r=0.81; 95% CI, 0.76 to 0.84). Two patients had important reactions to contrast medium after CT angiography. CONCLUSIONS: Multidetector CT angiography accurately identifies the presence and severity of obstructive coronary artery disease and subsequent revascularization in symptomatic patients. The negative and positive predictive values indicate that multidetector CT angiography cannot replace conventional coronary angiography at present. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00738218.)

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/nejmoa0806576

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

Cited by

See all 1,815

Metadata

Authors
Miller, J. M., Rochitte, C. E., Dewey, M., Arbab-Zadeh, A., Niinuma, H., Gottlieb, I., Paul, N., Clouse, M. E., Shapiro, E. P., Hoe, J., Lardo, A. C., Bush, D. E., de Roos, A., Cox, C., Brinker, J., & Lima, J. A. C.
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
2008-11-27
Volume
359
Issue
22
Pages
2324-2336
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W2132259559
Cited by
1,815
References
3
FWCI
107.28
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

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.