| pubmed-article:2337026 | rdf:type | pubmed:Citation | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:2337026 | lifeskim:mentions | umls-concept:C0085532 | lld:lifeskim |
| pubmed-article:2337026 | lifeskim:mentions | umls-concept:C1301886 | lld:lifeskim |
| pubmed-article:2337026 | lifeskim:mentions | umls-concept:C1261287 | lld:lifeskim |
| pubmed-article:2337026 | lifeskim:mentions | umls-concept:C0242485 | lld:lifeskim |
| pubmed-article:2337026 | lifeskim:mentions | umls-concept:C0205554 | lld:lifeskim |
| pubmed-article:2337026 | lifeskim:mentions | umls-concept:C1707455 | lld:lifeskim |
| pubmed-article:2337026 | lifeskim:mentions | umls-concept:C0175720 | lld:lifeskim |
| pubmed-article:2337026 | lifeskim:mentions | umls-concept:C0439165 | lld:lifeskim |
| pubmed-article:2337026 | lifeskim:mentions | umls-concept:C0392762 | lld:lifeskim |
| pubmed-article:2337026 | pubmed:issue | 18 | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:2337026 | pubmed:dateCreated | 1990-6-13 | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:2337026 | pubmed:abstractText | Measurement of coronary artery stenosis is an invaluable tool in the study of coronary artery disease. Clinical trials and even day-to-day decision making should ideally be based on accurate and reproducible quantitative methods. Quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) using digital angiographic techniques has been shown to fulfill these requirements. Yet many laboratories have abandoned visual analysis in favor of the intermediate quantitative approach involving hand-held calipers. Thus, the purpose of this study was to determine the relation between QCA and the commonly used caliper measurements. Percent stenosis was assessed in 155 lesions using 3 techniques: QCA, caliper measures from a 35-mm cine viewer (cine) and caliper measures from a video display (CRT). Good overall correlation was noted among the 3 different techniques (r greater than or equal to 0.72). Both of the caliper methods underestimated QCA for stenosis greater than or equal to 75% (p less than or equal to 0.001) and overestimated stenosis less than 75% (p less than 0.05). Reproducibility assessed in 52 lesions by independent observers showed QCA to be superior (r = 0.95) to either of the caliper measurements (cine: r = 0.63; CRT: r = 0.73). Therefore, the commonly used caliper method is not an adequate substitute for QCA because overestimation of noncritical stenoses and underestimation of severe stenoses may occur and the measurements have poor reproducibility. These factors definitely preclude its use in rigorous clinical trials. Moreover, since they do not appear to overcome known deficiencies of visual analysis, caliper measurements for day-to-day clinical use must also be seriously questioned. | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:2337026 | pubmed:language | eng | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:2337026 | pubmed:journal | http://linkedlifedata.com/r... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:2337026 | pubmed:citationSubset | AIM | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:2337026 | pubmed:status | MEDLINE | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:2337026 | pubmed:month | May | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:2337026 | pubmed:issn | 0002-9149 | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:2337026 | pubmed:author | pubmed-author:PintoI MIM | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:2337026 | pubmed:author | pubmed-author:ManciniG BGB | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:2337026 | pubmed:author | pubmed-author:DeBoeS FSF | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:2337026 | pubmed:author | pubmed-author:KalbfleischS... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:2337026 | pubmed:author | pubmed-author:McGillemM JMJ | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:2337026 | pubmed:author | pubmed-author:KavanaughK... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:2337026 | pubmed:issnType | Print | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:2337026 | pubmed:day | 15 | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:2337026 | pubmed:volume | 65 | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:2337026 | pubmed:owner | NLM | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:2337026 | pubmed:authorsComplete | Y | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:2337026 | pubmed:pagination | 1181-4 | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:2337026 | pubmed:dateRevised | 2006-11-15 | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:2337026 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:2337026-... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:2337026 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:2337026-... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:2337026 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:2337026-... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:2337026 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:2337026-... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:2337026 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:2337026-... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:2337026 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:2337026-... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:2337026 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:2337026-... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:2337026 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:2337026-... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:2337026 | pubmed:year | 1990 | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:2337026 | pubmed:articleTitle | Comparison of automated quantitative coronary angiography with caliper measurements of percent diameter stenosis. | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:2337026 | pubmed:affiliation | Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:2337026 | pubmed:publicationType | Journal Article | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:2337026 | pubmed:publicationType | Comparative Study | lld:pubmed |
| http://linkedlifedata.com/r... | pubmed:referesTo | pubmed-article:2337026 | lld:pubmed |
