The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Observer agreement in evaluating coronary angiograms.
Open accessAbstract
The reliability of interpretation of coronary arteriography as a diagnostic tool was investigated in a sub-study of the VA Cooperative Study of Surgical Treatment for Coronary Arterial Occlusive Disease. Twenty-two physicians with varying levels of experience read 13 cine angiograms -- blind -- on two different occasions. Analysis of inter- and intraobserver variability showed that angiographic items about which observers were most inconsistent from one reading to the other had the largest interobserver disagreement as well. They were the distal portions of the left anterior descending and left circumflex arteries. Among the items on which there was most consistent agreement -- namely, the right main coronary artery and presence of ventricular aneurysm -- there was most often agreement between observers as well. When individual readers were evaluated, some observers were far more consistent in their own readings of all the angiographic items than others. This intraobserver agreement in turn correlated fairly well with how often they agreed with the other observers and with how much experience they reported having in reading coronary cineangiograms.
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
Reliability of chest radiography in the diagnosis of pulmonary lesions
Yerushalmy, J. (1955) · The American Journal of Surgery · doi:10.1016/0002-9610(55)90525-0 · Cited by 66
The Measurement of Observer Disagreement in the Recording of Signs
Armitage, P., Blendis, L. M., & Smyllie, H. C. (1966) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A (General) · doi:10.2307/2343899 · Cited by 50
Cited by
Scanlon, P. J., Faxon, D. P., Audet, A.-M., Carabello, B., Dehmer, G. J., Eagle, K. A., Legako, R. D., Leon, D. F., Murray, J. A., Nissen, S. E., et al. (1999) · Journal of the American College of Cardiology · doi:10.1016/s0735-1097(99)00126-6 · Cited by 1,123
Reiber, J. H., Serruys, P. W., Kooijman, C. J., Wijns, W., Slager, C. J., Gerbrands, J. J., Schuurbiers, J. C., den Boer, A., & Hugenholtz, P. G. (1985) · Circulation · doi:10.1161/01.cir.71.2.280 · Cited by 829
ARNETT, E. N., ISNER, J. M., REDWOOD, D. R., KENT, K. M., BAKER, W. P., ACKERSTEIN, H., & ROBERTS, W. C. (1979) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-91-3-350 · Cited by 628
Smith, S. C., Dove, J. T., Jacobs, A. K., Kennedy, J. W., Kereiakes, D., Kern, M. J., Kuntz, R. E., Popma, J. J., Schaff, H. V., Williams, D. O., et al. (2001) · Circulation · doi:10.1161/01.cir.103.24.3019 · Cited by 608
ACC/AHA/SCAI 2005 Guideline Update for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention
Smith, S. C., Feldman, T. E., Hirshfeld, J. W., Jacobs, A. K., Kern, M. J., King, S. B., Morrison, D. A., O’Neill, W. W., Schaff, H. V., Whitlow, P. L., et al. (2006) · Journal of the American College of Cardiology · doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2005.12.001 · Cited by 532
Metadata
- Authors
- Detre, K. M., Wright, E., Murphy, M. L., & Takaro, T.
- Venue
- Circulation
- Published
- 1975-12
- Volume
- 52
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 979-986
- ISSN
- 0009-7322 (ISSN-L)
- 1524-4539
- OpenAlex
- W2109737438
- Cited by
- 447
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 25.60
- 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: Observer agreement in evaluating coronary angiograms. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1161/01.cir.52.6.979
- The paper
- Detre, K. M., Wright, E., Murphy, M. L., & Takaro, T. (1975). Observer agreement in evaluating coronary angiograms. Circulation. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.cir.52.6.979
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.
