Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 348

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Value of perfusion lung scan in the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism: results of the Prospective Investigative Study of Acute Pulmonary Embolism Diagnosis (PISA-PED).

Miniati, M, Pistolesi, M, Marini, C, Di Ricco, G, Formichi, B, Prediletto, R, Allescia, G, Tonelli, L, Sostman, H D, Giuntini, C·1996·American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine

Abstract

To assess the value of perfusion lung scan in the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism, we prospectively evaluated 890 consecutive patients with suspected pulmonary embolism. Prior to lung scanning, each patient was assigned a clinical probability of pulmonary embolism (very likely, possible, unlikely). Perfusion scans were independently classified as follows: (1) normal, (2) near-normal, (3) abnormal compatible with pulmonary embolism (PE+: single or multiple wedge-shaped perfusion defects), or (4) abnormal not compatible with pulmonary embolism (PE-: perfusion defects other than wedge-shaped). The study design required pulmonary angiography and clinical and scintigraphic follow-up in all patients with abnormal scans. Of 890 scans, 220 were classified as normal/or near-normal and 670 as abnormal. A definitive diagnosis was established in 563 (84%) patients with abnormal scans. The overall prevalence of pulmonary embolism was 39%. Most patients with angiographically proven pulmonary embolism had PE+ scans (sensitivity: 92%). Conversely, most patients without emboli on angiography had PE- scans (specificity: 87%). A PE+ scan associated with a very likely or possible clinical presentation of pulmonary embolism had positive predictive values of 99 and 92%, respectively. A PE- scan paired with an unlikely clinical presentation had a negative predictive value of 97%. Clinical assessment combined with perfusion-scan evaluation established or excluded pulmonary embolism in the majority of patients with abnormal scans. Our data indicate that accurate diagnosis of pulmonary embolism is possible by perfusion scanning alone, without ventilation imaging. Combining perfusion scanning with clinical assessment helps to restrict the need for angiography to a minority of patients with suspected pulmonary embolism.

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 · 10.1164/ajrccm.154.5.8912753

Cites

1 of 1 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 1 references

Cited by

See all 348

Metadata

Authors
Miniati, M., Pistolesi, M., Marini, C., Di Ricco, G., Formichi, B., Prediletto, R., Allescia, G., Tonelli, L., Sostman, H. D., & Giuntini, C.
Venue
American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine
Published
1996-11
Volume
154
Issue
5
Pages
1387-1393
ISSN
  • 1073-449X (ISSN-L)
  • 1535-4970
OpenAlex
W2019871393
Cited by
348
References
1
FWCI
4.99
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: Value of perfusion lung scan in the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism: results of the Prospective Investigative Study of Acute Pulmonary Embolism Diagnosis (PISA-PED). https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1164/ajrccm.154.5.8912753
The paper
Miniati, M., Pistolesi, M., Marini, C., Di Ricco, G., Formichi, B., Prediletto, R., Allescia, G., Tonelli, L., Sostman, H. D., & Giuntini, C. (1996). Value of perfusion lung scan in the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism: results of the Prospective Investigative Study of Acute Pulmonary Embolism Diagnosis (PISA-PED). American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1164/ajrccm.154.5.8912753

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.