ArticleThe international journal of cardiovascular imaging2011
A comparison of visual and quantitative assessment of left ventricular ejection fraction by cardiac magnetic resonance.
Article in The international journal of cardiovascular imaging, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Agreement between visually estimated left ventricular ejection fraction on echocardiography and quantitative measurements using cardiac magnetic resonance.Anatolian journal of cardiology · 2022Article
- Left ventricular ejection fraction and volumes: it depends on the imaging method.Echocardiography (Mount Kisco, N.Y.) · 2014Review
- Quantification of Right and Left Ventricular Function in Cardiac MR Imaging: Comparison of Semiautomatic and Manual Segmentation Algorithms.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2013Article
- Cardiovascular imaging 2011 in the International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2012Review
- Assessment of left ventricular function: visual or quantitative?The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
To determine the accuracy of visual analysis of left ventricular (LV) function in comparison with the accepted quantitative gold standard method, cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR). Cine CMR imaging was performed at 1.5 T on 44 patients with a range of ejection fractions (EF, 5-80%). Clinicians (n = 18) were asked to visually assess EF after sequentially being shown cine images of a four chamber (horizontal long axis; HLA), two chamber (vertical long axis; VLA) and a short axis stack (SAS) and results were compared to a commercially available analysis package. There were strong correlations between visual and quantitative assessment. However, the EF was underestimated in all categories (by 8.4% for HLA, 8.4% for HLA + VLA and 7.9% for HLA + VLA + SAS, P all < 0.01) and particularly underestimated in mild LV impairment (17.4%, P < 0.01), less so for moderate (4.9%) and not for severe impairment (1%). Assessing more than one view of the heart improved visual assessment of LV, EF, however, clinicians underestimated EF by 8.4% on average, with particular inaccuracy in those with mild dysfunction. Given the important clinical information provided by LV assessment, quantitative analysis is recommended for accurate assessment.
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.