The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Suspected Acute Pulmonary Embolism: Evaluation with Multi–Detector Row CT versus Digital Subtraction Pulmonary Arteriography
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine diagnostic accuracy of four-channel multi-detector row computed tomography (CT) in emergency room and inpatient populations suspected of having acute pulmonary embolism (PE) who prospectively underwent both CT and pulmonary arteriography (PA). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients referred for PA to assess suspected PE were eligible. Institutional review board approval and written informed consent were obtained. All patients underwent CT and PA within a 48-hour period. For CT, 4 x 2.5-mm collimation was used. Three readers independently evaluated each study for PE presence. PE status, vessel level, and lobar location were determined by means of majority rule, and interobserver agreement (kappa) was calculated for PE status, as assessed with each modality. Sensitivity and specificity of CT were calculated by using PA as the reference standard. Two radiologists later reviewed false-positive CT studies. RESULTS: The study group comprised 93 patients (median age, 56 years; range, 19-88 years). Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of CT were 100%, 89%, and 91%, respectively. kappa values were 0.71 and 0.83 for CT and PA, respectively, and were not significantly different between modalities. At PA, 18 patients (19%) had PE at 50 vessel levels (five main and/or interlobar, 24 segmental, and 21 subsegmental), 17 (94%) of which had PE at multiple sites. At CT, 26 patients (28%) had PE at 71 vessel levels (24 main and/or interlobar, 33 segmental, and 14 subsegmental). Twenty patients (77%) had PE at multiple sites. Review of eight false-positive CT studies showed an appearance highly suggestive of acute PE in three patients, chronic PE in one, and no PE in three; one study was inconclusive. CT better demonstrated large-level vessel involvement (P < .01), while PA better demonstrated small-level vessel involvement (P < .01). CONCLUSION: Multi-detector row CT has an accuracy of 91% in the depiction of suspected acute PE when conventional PA is used as the reference standard.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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
McCullagh, P., & Nelder, J. A. (1989) · doi:10.1007/978-1-4899-3242-6 · Cited by 16,836
Cited by
Identifying and Avoiding Bias in Research
Pannucci, C. J., & Wilkins, E. G. (2010) · Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery · doi:10.1097/prs.0b013e3181de24bc · Cited by 1,079
Metadata
- Authors
- Winer-Muram, H. T., Rydberg, J., Johnson, M. S., Tarver, R. D., Williams, M. D., Shah, H., Namyslowski, J., Conces, D., Jennings, S. G., Ying, J., Trerotola, S. O., & Kopecky, K. K.
- Venue
- Radiology
- Published
- 2004-12
- Volume
- 233
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 806-815
- ISSN
- 0033-8419 (ISSN-L)
- 1527-1315
- OpenAlex
- W1988216516
- Cited by
- 236
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 12.47
- 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: Suspected Acute Pulmonary Embolism: Evaluation with Multi–Detector Row CT versus Digital Subtraction Pulmonary Arteriography. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1148/radiol.2333031744
- The paper
- Winer-Muram, H. T., Rydberg, J., Johnson, M. S., Tarver, R. D., Williams, M. D., Shah, H., Namyslowski, J., Conces, D., Jennings, S. G., Ying, J., Trerotola, S. O., & Kopecky, K. K. (2004). Suspected Acute Pulmonary Embolism: Evaluation with Multi–Detector Row CT versus Digital Subtraction Pulmonary Arteriography. Radiology. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2333031744
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.