Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 166

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Diagnosis of chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension: comparison of ventilation/perfusion scanning and multidetector computed tomography pulmonary angiography with pulmonary angiography

He, Jia, Fang, Wei, Lv, Bin, He, Jian-Guo, Xiong, Chang-Ming, Liu, Zhi-Hong, He, Zuo-Xiang·2012·Nuclear Medicine Communications

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The correct and prompt diagnosis of chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH) plays a pivotal role in determining appropriate therapy. This study aimed to compare the diagnostic efficacy of pulmonary ventilation/perfusion (V/Q) scanning and computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA) using pulmonary angiography as the golden standard. METHODS: A total of 114 consecutive patients (49 men and 65 women, age 43.3 ± 15.3 years) suspected of having CTEPH were prospectively enrolled. All patients underwent V/Q scanning, CTPA, and pulmonary angiography within an interval of 7 days from one another. Interpretation of V/Q images was based on the refined Pulmonary Embolism Diagnosis criteria. For threshold 1, high-probability and intermediate-probability V/Q scan findings were considered to be positive, and low-probability/normal V/Q scan findings were negative. For threshold 2, only a high-probability V/Q scan finding was considered to be positive, and intermediate-probability and low-probability/normal V/Q scan findings were considered to be negative. RESULTS: Fifty-one patients (44.7%) had a final diagnosis of CTEPH. V/Q scan showed high probability, intermediate probability, and low probability/normal scan in 52, three, and 59 patients, respectively. CTPA revealed 50 patients with CTEPH and 64 patients without CTEPH. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of the V/Q scan were 100, 93.7, and 96.5%, respectively, with threshold 1, and 96.1, 95.2, and 95.6%, respectively, with threshold 2; similarly, the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of CTPA were 92.2, 95.2, and 93.9%, respectively. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, both V/Q scanning and CTPA are accurate methods for the detection of CTEPH with excellent diagnostic efficacy.

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 · 10.1097/mnm.0b013e32835085d9

Cites

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

Cited by

See all 166

Metadata

Authors
He, J., Fang, W., Lv, B., He, J.-G., Xiong, C.-M., Liu, Z.-H., & He, Z.-X.
Venue
Nuclear Medicine Communications
Published
2012-05
Volume
33
Issue
5
Pages
459-463
ISSN
0143-3636 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2089780622
Cited by
166
References
0
FWCI
4.07
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

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 chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension: comparison of ventilation/perfusion scanning and multidetector computed tomography pulmonary angiography with pulmonary angiography. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/mnm.0b013e32835085d9
The paper
He, J., Fang, W., Lv, B., He, J.-G., Xiong, C.-M., Liu, Z.-H., & He, Z.-X. (2012). Diagnosis of chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension: comparison of ventilation/perfusion scanning and multidetector computed tomography pulmonary angiography with pulmonary angiography. Nuclear Medicine Communications. https://doi.org/10.1097/mnm.0b013e32835085d9

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.