ArticleThe international journal of cardiovascular imaging2010
Impact of analyzing less image frames per segment for radiofrequency-based volumetric intravascular ultrasound measurements in mild-to-moderate coronary atherosclerosis.
Article in The international journal of cardiovascular imaging, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Multicenter assessment of the reproducibility of volumetric radiofrequency-based intravascular ultrasound measurements in coronary lesions that were consecutively stented.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2012Article
- Impact of analyzing fewer image frames per segment during offline volumetric radiofrequency-based intravascular ultrasound measurements of target lesions prior to percutaneous coronary interventions.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2012Article
- Ultrasound and light: friend or foe? On the role of intravascular ultrasound in the era of optical coherence tomography.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Volumetric radiofrequency-based intravascular ultrasound (RF-IVUS) data of coronary segments are increasingly used as endpoints in serial trials of novel anti-atherosclerotic therapies. In a relatively time-consuming process, vessel and lumen contours are defined; these contours are first automatically detected, then visually checked, and finally (in most cases) manually edited to generate reliable volumetric data of vessel geometry and plaque composition. Reduction in number of cross-sectional images for volumetric analysis could save analysis time but may also increase measurement variability of volumetric data. To assess whether a 50% reduction in number of frames per segment (every second frame) alters the reproducibility of volumetric measurements, we performed repeated RF-IVUS analyses of 15 coronary segments with mild-to-moderate atherosclerosis (20.2 +/- 0.2 mm-long segments with 46 +/- 13% plaque burden). Volumes were calculated based on a total of 731 image frames. Reducing the number of cross-sectional image frames for volumetric measurements saved analysis time (38 +/- 9 vs. 68 +/- 17 min/segment; P < 0.0001) and resulted for only a few parameters in (borderline) significant but mild differences versus measurements based on all frames (fibrous volume, P < 0.05; necrotic-core volume, P = 0.07). Compared to the intra-observer variability, there was a mild increase in measurement variability for most geometrical and compositional volumetric RF-IVUS parameters. In RF-IVUS studies of mild-to-moderate coronary disease, analyzing less image frames saved analysis time, left most volumetric parameters greatly unaffected, and resulted in a no more than mild increase in measurement variability of volumetric data.
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.