ArticleThe international journal of cardiovascular imaging2015
Semi-automated echocardiographic quantification of right ventricular size and function.
Article in The international journal of cardiovascular imaging, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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.
- Measuring the accuracy of cardiac output using POCUS: the introduction of artificial intelligence into routine care.The ultrasound journal · 2022Article
- Automatic cardiac evaluations using a deep video object segmentation network.Insights into imaging · 2022Article
- Comparison of Semi-Automated Versus Manual Quantitative Right Ventricular Assessment in Hypoplastic Left Heart Syndrome.Pediatric cardiology · 2020Article
- Artificial intelligence in cardiovascular imaging: state of the art and implications for the imaging cardiologist.Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation · 2019Review
- Cardiovascular imaging 2015 in the International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Although parameters of right ventricular (RV) size and function are clinically important, echocardiographic assessment of this chamber is complex. Existing quantitative approaches rely on manual measurements performed on different images, and are thus time-consuming. Consequently, in clinical practice, qualitative assessment is usually used instead. We tested a new approach for automated measurements of RV size and function using speckle tracking by comparing them to the conventional manual methodology. Transthoracic images were obtained in 149 patients with a wide range of RV size and function, and were analyzed by an expert using conventional techniques to obtain RV end-diastolic and end-systolic areas, fractional area change, dimensions (basal and mid-cavity diameters and length), tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion and peak systolic velocity. Same parameters were obtained using the semi-automated software (Epsilon Imaging), which requires tracing of the RV endocardial boundary in a single frame in the RV focused view. Fifteen patients were excluded due to image quality (90% feasibility). Time required for the automated analysis was approximately 30 s per patient, compared to 4 min for conventional analysis. The parameters obtained with the semi-automated approach were in good agreement with manual measurements: r-values 0.79-0.95 for RV size and 0.70-0.74 for function indices and biases of 2-22% of the mean measured values, which were comparable to the intrinsic variability of the conventional technique. In conclusion, the semi-automated technique is feasible, fast and provides quantitative parameters of RV size and function, which are comparable to conventional measurements.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25948160What 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.