Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23634753›Full record

GuidelineJournal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance2013

Standardized image interpretation and post processing in cardiovascular magnetic resonance: Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance (SCMR) board of trustees task force on standardized post processing.

Jeanette Schulz-Menger, David A Bluemke, Jens Bremerich, Scott D Flamm, Mark A Fogel, Matthias G Friedrich, Raymond J Kim, Florian von Knobelsdorff-Brenkenhoff, Christopher M Kramer, Dudley J Pennell and 2 more

Abstract readPractice Guideline
In one paragraph

Guideline in Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 556 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
556citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

556 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance reference values ("normal values") in cardiovascular magnetic resonance: 2025 update.Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance · 2025
    Guideline
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. The impact of Wilson disease on myocardial tissue and function: a cardiovascular magnetic resonance study.Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance · 2021
    Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Cardiovascular magnetic resonance accurately detects obstructive coronary artery disease in suspected non-ST elevation myocardial infarction: a sub-analysis of the CARMENTA Trial.Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance · 2021
    Trial
  8. Multiparametric exercise stress cardiovascular magnetic resonance in the diagnosis of coronary artery disease: the EMPIRE trial.Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance · 2021
    Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Reference ranges for myocardial native T1, T2, and extracellular volume at 5.0T cardiac magnetic resonance imaging in healthy adults.Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance · 2026
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Observational

496 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Jeanette Schulz-MengerWorking Group on Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance, Experimental and Clinical Research Center, a joint cooperation between the Charité Medical Faculty and the Max-Delbrueck Center for Molecular Medicine, and HELIOS Klinikum Berlin Buch, Department of Cardiology and Nephrology, Charité Medical University Berlin, Berlin, Germany. jeanette.schulz-menger@charite.de
David A Bluemke
Jens Bremerich
Scott D Flamm
Mark A Fogel
Matthias G Friedrich
Raymond J Kim
Florian von Knobelsdorff-Brenkenhoff
Christopher M Kramer
Dudley J Pennell
Sven Plein
Eike Nagel

Funding

Molecular Biomedical Imaging Laboratory (NIBIB)ZIAEB000072 · NIBIB · NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF BIOMEDICAL IMAGING AND BIOENGINEERING · PI BLUEMKE, DAVID · 2010 to 2017
$5.0M
Molecular Biomedical Imaging Laboratory (CC)ZIACL090019 · CLC · CLINICAL CENTER · PI JONES, ELIZABETH C. · 2010 to 2017
$0k
British Heart Foundation RE/08/003Wellcome Trust 088641/Z/09/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

With mounting data on its accuracy and prognostic value, cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) is becoming an increasingly important diagnostic tool with growing utility in clinical routine. Given its versatility and wide range of quantitative parameters, however, agreement on specific standards for the interpretation and post-processing of CMR studies is required to ensure consistent quality and reproducibility of CMR reports. This document addresses this need by providing consensus recommendations developed by the Task Force for Post Processing of the Society for Cardiovascular MR (SCMR). The aim of the task force is to recommend requirements and standards for image interpretation and post processing enabling qualitative and quantitative evaluation of CMR images. Furthermore, pitfalls of CMR image analysis are discussed where appropriate.

Indexed as

Cardiovascular DiseasesHumansImage Interpretation, Computer-AssistedMagnetic Resonance ImagingReproducibility of Results

Identifiers

PMID23634753
PMCPMC3695769

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.