Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 672

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

MR-IMPACT: comparison of perfusion-cardiac magnetic resonance with single-photon emission computed tomography for the detection of coronary artery disease in a multicentre, multivendor, randomized trial

Open access
Schwitter, Juerg, Wacker, Christian M., van Rossum, Albert C., Lombardi, Massimo, Al-Saadi, Nidal, Ahlstrom, Hakan, Dill, Thorsten, Larsson, Henrik B.W., Flamm, Scott D., Marquardt, Moritz, Johansson, Lars·2008·European Heart Journal

Abstract

AIMS: To determine in a multicentre, multivendor trial the diagnostic performance for perfusion-cardiac magnetic resonance (perfusion-CMR) in comparison with coronary X-ray angiography (CXA) and single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT). METHODS AND RESULTS: Of 241 eligible patients from 18 centres, 234 were randomly dosed with 0.01, 0.025, 0.05, 0.075, or 0.1 mmol/kg Gd-DTPA-BMA (Omniscantrade mark, GE-Healthcare) per stress (0.42 mg/kg adenosine) and rest perfusion study. Coronary artery disease (CAD) was defined as diameter stenosis > or =50% on quantitative CXA. Five CMR and eight SPECT studies (of 225 complete studies) were excluded from analyses due to inadequate quality (three blinded readers scored per modality). The comparison of CMR vs. SPECT was based on receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. Perfusion-CMR at the optimal CM dose (0.1 mmol/kg) had similar performance as SPECT, if only the SPECT studies of the 42 patients with this dose were considered [area under ROC curve (AUC): 0.86 +/- 0.06 vs. 0.75 +/- 0.09 for SPECT, P = 0.12]; however, diagnostic performance of perfusion-CMR was better vs. the entire SPECT population (AUC: 0.67 +/- 0.05, n = 212, P = 0.013). CONCLUSIONS: In this multicentre, multivendor trial, ROC analyses suggest perfusion-CMR as a valuable alternative to SPECT for CAD detection showing equal performance in the head-to-head comparison. Comparing perfusion-CMR with the entire SPECT population suggests CMR superiority over SPECT, which warrants further evaluation in larger trials.

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 · 10.1093/eurheartj/ehm617

Cites

2 of 2 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 2 references

Cited by

See all 672

Metadata

Authors
Schwitter, J., Wacker, C. M., van Rossum, A. C., Lombardi, M., Al-Saadi, N., Ahlstrom, H., Dill, T., Larsson, H. B. W., Flamm, S. D., Marquardt, M., & Johansson, L.
Venue
European Heart Journal
Published
2008-01-21
Volume
29
Issue
4
Pages
480-489
ISSN
  • 0195-668X (ISSN-L)
  • 1522-9645
OpenAlex
W2141312937
Cited by
672
References
2
FWCI
52.33
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: MR-IMPACT: comparison of perfusion-cardiac magnetic resonance with single-photon emission computed tomography for the detection of coronary artery disease in a multicentre, multivendor, randomized trial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/eurheartj/ehm617
The paper
Schwitter, J., Wacker, C. M., van Rossum, A. C., Lombardi, M., Al-Saadi, N., Ahlstrom, H., Dill, T., Larsson, H. B. W., Flamm, S. D., Marquardt, M., & Johansson, L. (2008). MR-IMPACT: comparison of perfusion-cardiac magnetic resonance with single-photon emission computed tomography for the detection of coronary artery disease in a multicentre, multivendor, randomized trial. European Heart Journal. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehm617

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.