ArticleThe international journal of cardiovascular imaging2006
Dedicated calibration formulas permit correction of differences between measurements by different IVUS devices as demonstrated in atherosclerotic human coronary arteries in vitro.
Article in The international journal of cardiovascular imaging, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of quantitative measurements between two different intravascular ultrasound catheters and consoles: in vitro and in vivo studies.Cardiovascular intervention and therapeutics · 2022Article
- Impact of analyzing less image frames per segment for radiofrequency-based volumetric intravascular ultrasound measurements in mild-to-moderate coronary atherosclerosis.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2010Article
- Reproducibility of volumetric intravascular ultrasound radiofrequency-based analysis of coronary plaque composition in vivo.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2009Article
- Atherosclerosis imaging with intravascular ultrasound. Validating acquisition and measurement tools to assure meaningful results.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2006Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
10 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Serial intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) measurements of coronary vessel dimensions are major endpoints of studies focusing on pharmacological interventions, efficiency of drug eluting stents, and vascular remodeling. In serial studies measurement variability among different IVUS devices may cause substantial misinterpretation and error. We analyzed 33 human coronary plaques in vitro using two different IVUS systems (mechanical IVUS system with a 40 MHz Atlantis SR catheter; solid-state electronic IVUS system with a 20 MHz Invision catheter) and repeatedly measured the total vessel, lumen, and plaque + media cross-sectional area and plaque burden (plaque + media area divided by total vessel area). Between the "raw" measurements made by the two devices, there was a significant difference for both plaque + media area (2.35+/-1.86 mm(2), P < 0.01) and plaque burden (5.39+/-3.68%, P < 0.05). Measurements were then corrected by use of recently introduced calibration formulas; as a result the differences decreased significantly for all IVUS parameters measured ( P < 0.0001). After correction, the remaining differences between the corrected mechanical and solid-state IVUS measurements similar to differences between repeated measurements with the same IVUS device (i.e., the intraobserver variability). Thus, in serial studies the use of different IVUS devices at index and follow-up procedure may introduce a substantial error as a result of system-related differences. The application of dedicated calibration formulas allows for correction for these differences by decreasing such differences to the level of intraobserver variability.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.