The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Meta-analysis of the diagnostic performance of stress perfusion cardiovascular magnetic resonance for detection of coronary artery disease
Open accessAbstract
AIM: Evaluation of the diagnostic accuracy of stress perfusion cardiovascular magnetic resonance for the diagnosis of significant obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) through meta-analysis of the available data. METHODOLOGY: Original articles in any language published before July 2009 were selected from available databases (MEDLINE, Cochrane Library and BioMedCentral) using the combined search terms of magnetic resonance, perfusion, and coronary angiography; with the exploded term coronary artery disease. Statistical analysis was only performed on studies that: (1) used a [greater than or equal to] 1.5 Tesla MR scanner; (2) employed invasive coronary angiography as the reference standard for diagnosing significant obstructive CAD, defined as a [greater than or equal to] 50% diameter stenosis; and (3) provided sufficient data to permit analysis. RESULTS: From the 263 citations identified, 55 relevant original articles were selected. Only 35 fulfilled all of the inclusion criteria, and of these 26 presented data on patient-based analysis. The overall patient-based analysis demonstrated a sensitivity of 89% (95% CI: 88-91%), and a specificity of 80% (95% CI: 78-83%). Adenosine stress perfusion CMR had better sensitivity than with dipyridamole (90% (88-92%) versus 86% (80-90%), P = 0.022), and a tendency to a better specificity (81% (78-84%) versus 77% (71-82%), P = 0.065). CONCLUSION: Stress perfusion CMR is highly sensitive for detection of CAD but its specificity remains moderate.
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
Whiting, P., Rutjes, A. W., Reitsma, J. B., Bossuyt, P. M., & Kleijnen, J. (2003) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-3-25 · Cited by 3,592
The diagnostic odds ratio: a single indicator of test performance
Glas, A. S., Lijmer, J. G., Prins, M. H., Bonsel, G. J., & Bossuyt, P. M. M. (2003) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/s0895-4356(03)00177-x · Cited by 2,261
Cited by
2013 ESC guidelines on the management of stable coronary artery disease
Task Force Members, Montalescot, G., Sechtem, U., Achenbach, S., Andreotti, F., Arden, C., Budaj, A., Bugiardini, R., Crea, F., Cuisset, T., et al. (2013) · European Heart Journal · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/eht296 · Cited by 4,510
2024 ESC Guidelines for the management of chronic coronary syndromes
Vrints, C., Andreotti, F., Koskinas, K. C., Rossello, X., Adamo, M., Ainslie, J., Banning, A. P., Budaj, A., Buechel, R. R., Chiariello, G. A., et al. (2024) · European Heart Journal · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehae177 · Cited by 2,774
Fihn, S. D., Gardin, J. M., Abrams, J., Berra, K., Blankenship, J. C., Dallas, A. P., Douglas, P. S., Foody, J. M., Gerber, T. C., Hinderliter, A. L., et al. (2012) · Circulation · doi:10.1161/cir.0b013e318277d6a0 · Cited by 845
Metadata
- Authors
- Hamon, M., Fau, G., Née, G., Ehtisham, J., Morello, R., & Hamon, M.
- Venue
- Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2010-10
- Volume
- 12
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 29
- ISSN
- 1097-6647 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2156497239
- Cited by
- 268
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 2.80
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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: Meta-analysis of the diagnostic performance of stress perfusion cardiovascular magnetic resonance for detection of coronary artery disease. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/1532-429x-12-29
- The paper
- Hamon, M., Fau, G., Née, G., Ehtisham, J., Morello, R., & Hamon, M. (2010). Meta-analysis of the diagnostic performance of stress perfusion cardiovascular magnetic resonance for detection of coronary artery disease. Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance. https://doi.org/10.1186/1532-429x-12-29
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.