These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.
3. Effect of variability in the interpretation of coronary angiograms on the appropriateness of use of coronary revascularization procedures. Leape LL; Park RE; Bashore TM; Harrison JK; Davidson CJ; Brook RH Am Heart J; 2000 Jan; 139(1 Pt 1):106-13. PubMed ID: 10618570 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Reproducibility of a consensus panel in the interpretation of coronary angiograms. Sanmarco ME; Brooks SH; Blankenhorn DH Am Heart J; 1978 Oct; 96(4):430-7. PubMed ID: 696563 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Compression of digital coronary angiograms does not affect visual or quantitative assessment of coronary artery stenosis severity. Rigolin VH; Robiolio PA; Spero LA; Harrawood BP; Morris KG; Fortin DF; Baker WA; Bashore TM; Cusma JT Am J Cardiol; 1996 Jul; 78(2):131-5. PubMed ID: 8712131 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Inter- and intra-observer variability in the qualitative categorization of coronary angiograms. Herrman JP; Azar A; Umans VA; Boersma E; von Es GA; Serruys PW Int J Card Imaging; 1996 Mar; 12(1):21-30. PubMed ID: 8847451 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Variability in the analysis of coronary arteriograms. DeRouen TA; Murray JA; Owen W Circulation; 1977 Feb; 55(2):324-8. PubMed ID: 832349 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Comparison of visual estimate with digital caliper measurement of coronary artery stenosis. Schweiger MJ; Stanek E; Iwakoshi K; Hafer JG; Jacob A; Tullner W; Gianelly RE Cathet Cardiovasc Diagn; 1987; 13(4):239-44. PubMed ID: 3621336 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Second reading of coronary angiograms by radiologists. Birnbaum LM; Filion KB; Joyal D; Eisenberg MJ Can J Cardiol; 2006 Dec; 22(14):1217-2221. PubMed ID: 17151771 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Variation in measurement of coronary lesions on 35 and 70 mm angiograms. Myers MG; Shulman HS; Saibil EA; Naqvi SZ AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1978 May; 130(5):913-15. PubMed ID: 417590 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Angiographic quantification of diffuse coronary artery disease: reliability and prognostic value for bypass operations. Graham MM; Chambers RJ; Davies RF J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg; 1999 Oct; 118(4):618-27. PubMed ID: 10504625 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Coronary angiography and revascularization: defining procedural indications through formal group processes. The Canadian Revascularization Panel, the Canadian Coronary Angiography Panel. Naylor CD; McGlynn EA; Leape LL; Pinfold SP; Bernstein SJ; Hilborne LH; Park RE; Kahan JP; Brook RH Can J Cardiol; 1994; 10(1):41-8. PubMed ID: 8111670 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. [Variability in the interpretation of coronary angiograms by different specialists based on data from the cooperative Coronary Artery Surgery Study]. Kemp H; Davis K; Judkins MP; Gosselin A; Kennedy JW; Cameron A; Swaye PS; Maynard C; Fisher LD Kardiologiia; 1982 Feb; 22(2):37-42. PubMed ID: 7069987 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. The reliability of coronary angiogram interpretation: an angiographic-pathologic correlation with a comparison of radiographic views. Murphy ML; Galbraith JE; de Soyza N Am Heart J; 1979 May; 97(5):578-84. PubMed ID: 433732 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]