ArticleThe international journal of cardiovascular imaging2009
Reliability of ultrasonography in detecting flow mediated dilation.
Article in The international journal of cardiovascular imaging, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The reproducibility, interobserver and intraobserver variability of brachial artery flow-mediated dilation (FMD) has previously been reported. However, no study has compared the brachial artery FMD, detected by ultrasonography, simultaneously with reference imaging technique. The aim of this study was to assess the precision and accuracy of ultrasonography in detecting FMD compared to angiography. The study population consisted of 40 patients (13 females, mean age 56 +/- 8 years) who underwent elective diagnostic coronary angiography. The ultrasonographic FMD (USFMD) measurements have been performed according to established standards with the subjects laying on the angiography table. Selective left brachial angiography was performed while ultrasonographic measurements of the brachial artery were obtained at baseline and during reactive hyperemia. To assess precision, USFMD was compared with angiographic FMD (AGFMD) by linear regression. The accuracy of the ultrasonographic measurement in comparison to the angiographic measurement was assessed by the Bland and Altman analysis. The mean +/- SD of the testing USFMD and AGFMD measurements were 14.1 +/- 7.3 and 14.7 +/- 7.8%, respectively. Linear regression indicated a high correlation (r = 0.93, P < 0.0001) between ultrasonographic and angiographic measures, with a standard error of estimate of 2.7%. Agreement between measurements was reasonable (95% of limits of agreement, -5.481 to 4,674%). Ultrasonography seems to be reliable technique in detecting FMD.
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.