Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27621804›Full record

ArticleSAGE open medicine2016

Comparison of left ventricular ejection fraction values obtained using invasive contrast left ventriculography, two-dimensional echocardiography, and gated single-photon emission computed tomography.

Nadish Garg, Thomas Dresser, Kul Aggarwal, Vishal Gupta, Mayank K Mittal, Martin A Alpert

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in SAGE open medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. A method using deep learning to discover new predictors from left-ventricular mechanical dyssynchrony for CRT response.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2023
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Myocardial perfusion and left ventricular quantitative parameters obtained using gated myocardial SPECT: Comparison of three software packages.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2018
    Article
  5. Article
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

6 authors.

Nadish GargDivision of Cardiovascular Medicine, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, USA; The Harry S Truman Memorial Veterans Hospital, Columbia, MO, USA.
Thomas DresserDivision of Cardiovascular Medicine, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, USA; The Harry S Truman Memorial Veterans Hospital, Columbia, MO, USA.
Kul AggarwalDivision of Cardiovascular Medicine, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, USA; The Harry S Truman Memorial Veterans Hospital, Columbia, MO, USA.
Vishal GuptaDivision of Cardiovascular Medicine, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, USA; The Harry S Truman Memorial Veterans Hospital, Columbia, MO, USA.
Mayank K MittalDivision of Cardiovascular Medicine, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, USA; The Harry S Truman Memorial Veterans Hospital, Columbia, MO, USA.
Martin A AlpertDivision of Cardiovascular Medicine, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, USA; The Harry S Truman Memorial Veterans Hospital, Columbia, MO, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesLeft ventricular ejection fraction can be measured by a variety of invasive and non-invasive cardiac techniques. This study assesses the relation of three diagnostic modalities to each other in the measurement of left ventricular ejection fraction: invasive contrast left ventriculography, two-dimensional echocardiography, and quantitative gated single-photon emission computed tomography.

methodsRetrospective chart review was conducted on 58 patients hospitalized with chest pain, who underwent left ventricular ejection fraction evaluation using each of the aforementioned modalities within a 3-month period not interrupted by myocardial infarction or revascularization.

resultsThe mean left ventricular ejection fraction values were as follows: invasive contrast left ventriculography (0.44±0.15), two-dimensional echocardiography (0.46±0.13), and gated single-photon emission computed tomography (0.37±0.10). Correlations coefficients and associated p values were as follows: invasive contrast left ventriculography versus two-dimensional echocardiography (r=0.69, p<0.001), invasive contrast left ventriculography versus gated single-photon emission computed tomography (r=0.80, p<0.0001), and gated single-photon emission computed tomography versus two-dimensional echocardiography (r=0.69, p<0.001).

conclusionOur results indicate that strong positive correlations exist among the three techniques studied.

Indexed as

Cardiovascularcontrast left ventriculographyechocardiographyleft ventricular ejection fractionquantitative gated single-photon emission computed tomographyradiology

Identifiers

PMID27621804
PMCPMC5006806

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.