ArticleLa Radiologia medica2017
Intra- and inter-reader reproducibility of blood flow measurements on the ascending aorta and pulmonary artery using cardiac magnetic resonance.
Article in La Radiologia medica, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Coronary artery disease (CAD) extension-derived risk stratification for asymptomatic diabetic patients: usefulness of low-dose coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) in detecting high-risk profile patients.La Radiologia medica · 2020Article
- Noninvasive imaging of congenital cardiovascular defects.La Radiologia medica · 2020Review
- Cardiac MRI: technical basis.La Radiologia medica · 2020Review
- Stationary tissue background correction increases the precision of clinical evaluation of intra-cardiac shunts by cardiovascular magnetic resonance.Scientific reports · 2020Article
- Blood-threshold CMR volume analysis of functional univentricular heart.La Radiologia medica · 2018Article
- Measurement of jugular foramen diameter using MRI in multiple sclerosis patients compared to control subjects.European radiology experimental · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of our study was to estimate the intra- and inter-reader reproducibility of blood flow measurements in the ascending aorta and main pulmonary artery using cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) and a semi-automated segmentation method. The ethics committee approved this retrospective study. A total of 50 consecutive patients (35 males and 15 females; mean age±standard deviation 27±13 years) affected by congenital heart disease were reviewed. They underwent CMR for flow analysis of the ascending aorta and main pulmonary artery (1.5 T, through-plane phase-contrast sequences). Two independent readers (R1, trained radiology resident; R2, lower-trained technician student) obtained segmented images twice (>10-day interval), using a semi-automated method of segmentation. Peak velocity, forward and backward flows were obtained. Bland-Altman analysis was used and reproducibility was reported as complement to 100% of the ratio between the coefficient of repeatability and the mean. R1 intra-reader reproducibility for the aorta was 99% (peak velocity), 95% (forward flow) and 49% (backward flow); for the pulmonary artery, 99%, 91% and 90%, respectively. R2 intra-reader reproducibility was 92%, 91% and 38%; 98%, 86% and 87%, respectively. Inter-reader reproducibility for the aorta was 91%, 85% and 20%; for the pulmonary artery 96%, 75%, and 82%, respectively. Our results showed a good to excellent reproducibility of blood flow measurements of CMR together with a semiautomated method of segmentation, for all variables except the backward flow of the ascending aorta, with a limited impact of operator's training.
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.