Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26578468›Full record

ArticleThe international journal of cardiovascular imaging2016

Comparison of left ventricular manual versus automated derived longitudinal strain: implications for clinical practice and research.

Yukari Kobayashi, Miyuki Ariyama, Yuhei Kobayashi, Genevieve Giraldeau, Dominik Fleischman, Mirta Kozelj, Bojan Vrtovec, Euan Ashley, Tatiana Kuznetsova, Ingela Schnittger and 2 more

Open access · greenAbstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The international journal of cardiovascular imaging, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
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 at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Yukari KobayashiDivision of Cardiovascular Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, 300 Pasteur Drive Room H2170, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA. yukariko@stanford.edu.
Miyuki AriyamaDivision of Cardiovascular Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, 300 Pasteur Drive Room H2170, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA.
Yuhei KobayashiDivision of Cardiovascular Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, 300 Pasteur Drive Room H2170, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA.
Genevieve GiraldeauDivision of Cardiovascular Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, 300 Pasteur Drive Room H2170, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA.
Dominik FleischmanDivision of Cardiovascular Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, 300 Pasteur Drive Room H2170, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA.
Mirta KozeljDivision of Cardiovascular Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, 300 Pasteur Drive Room H2170, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA.
Bojan VrtovecDivision of Cardiovascular Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, 300 Pasteur Drive Room H2170, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA.
Euan AshleyDivision of Cardiovascular Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, 300 Pasteur Drive Room H2170, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA.
Tatiana KuznetsovaStanford Cardiovascular Institute, Stanford, CA, USA.
Ingela SchnittgerDivision of Cardiovascular Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, 300 Pasteur Drive Room H2170, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA.
David LiangDivision of Cardiovascular Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, 300 Pasteur Drive Room H2170, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA.
Francois HaddadDivision of Cardiovascular Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, 300 Pasteur Drive Room H2170, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA.
Cardiovascular Institute of the South · USStanford University · USKU Leuven · BE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Systolic global longitudinal strain (GLS) is emerging as a useful metric of ventricular function in heart failure and usually assessed using post-processing software. The purpose of this study was to investigate whether longitudinal strain (LS) derived using manual-tracings of ventricular lengths (manual-LS) can be reliable and time efficient when compared to LS obtained by post-processing software (software-LS). Apical 4-chamber view images were retrospectively examined in 50 healthy controls, 100 patients with dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM), and 100 with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM). We measured endocardial and mid-wall manual-LS and software-LS, using peak of average regional curve [software-LS(a)] and global ventricular lengths [software-LS(l)] according to definition of Lagragian strain. We compared manual-LS and software-LS by using Bland-Altman plot and coefficient of variation (COV). In addition, test-retest was also performed for further assessment of variability in measurements. While manual-LS was obtained in all subjects, software-LS could be obtained in 238 subjects (95%). The time spent for obtaining manual-LS was significantly shorter than for the software-LS (94 ± 39 s vs. 141 ± 79 s, P < 0.001). Overall, manual-LS had an excellent correlation with both software-LS (a) (R(2) = 0.93, P < 0.001) and software-LS(l) (R(2) = 0.84, P < 0.001). The bias (95%CI) between endocardial manual-LS and software-LS(a) was 0.4% [-2.8, 3.6%] in absolute and 3.5% [-17.0, 24.0%] in relative difference while it was 0.4% [-2.5, 3.3%] and 3.4% [-16.2, 23.1%], respectively with software-LS(l). Mid-wall manual-LS and mid-wall software-LS(a) also had good agreement [a bias (95% CI) for absolute value of 0.1% [-2.1, 2.5%] in HCM, and 0.2% [-2.2, 2.6%] in controls]. The COV for manual and software derived LS were below 6%. Test-retest showed good variability for both methods (COVs were 5.8 and 4.7 for endocardial and mid-wall manual-LS, and 4.6 and 4.9 for endocardial and mid-wall software-LS(a), respectively. Manual-LS appears to be as reproducible as software-LS; this may be of value especially when global strain is the metric of interest.

Indexed as

Myocardial ContractionStroke VolumeVentricular Function, LeftAdultAgedAutomationBiomechanical PhenomenaCardiomyopathy, DilatedCardiomyopathy, HypertrophicFeasibility StudiesFemaleHumansImage Interpretation, Computer-AssistedMaleMiddle AgedObserver VariationDilated cardiomyopathyEchocardiographyGlobal longitudinal strainHeart failureHypertrophic cardiomyopathyPost-processing softwareStrain imagingVendor-independentVentricular function

Identifiers

PMID26578468
OpenAlexW2201858373

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.