ArticleAvicenna journal of medicine
Visual versus fully automated assessment of left ventricular ejection fraction.
Article in Avicenna journal of medicine. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07286227 (Assessment of Left Ventricular Function Before Decannulation in Cardiopulmonary Bypass Surgeries), which is not on this map. Cited by 9 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.
Assessment of Left Ventricular Function Before Decannulation in Cardiopulmonary Bypass Surgeries: Comparison of the Cardiac Surgeon's Visual Estimation and Transesophageal Echocardiography
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial Intelligence in Cardiovascular Medicine: A Giant Step in Personalized Medicine?Journal of personalized medicine · 2026Review
- Artificial Intelligence in Cardiovascular Imaging: From Automated Acquisition to Precision Diagnostics and Clinical Decision Support.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Prognostic value of adenosine stress echocardiography in chronic coronary syndromes with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction.Cardiovascular ultrasound · 2025Article
- Machine Learning-Enabled Fully Automated Assessment of Left Ventricular Volume, Ejection Fraction and Strain: Experience in Pediatric and Young Adult Echocardiography.Pediatric cardiology · 2024Article
- Role of myocardial strain imaging in diagnosing inducible myocardial ischemia with treadmill contrast-enhanced stress echocardiography.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2024Article
- Cardiac Damage After SARS-CoV2 Infection.Cureus · 2024Article
- Left ventricular systolic function in subjects conceived through assisted reproductive technologies.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2023Article
- Agreement between visually estimated left ventricular ejection fraction on echocardiography and quantitative measurements using cardiac magnetic resonance.Anatolian journal of cardiology · 2022Article
- Loss of Ventricular Function After Bidirectional Cavopulmonary Connection: Who Is at Risk?Pediatric cardiology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe aim of this study is to compare three different echocardiographic methods commonly used in the assessment of left ventricle (LV) ejection fraction (EF).
methodsAll patients underwent full echocardiography including LVEF assessed using M-mode, automated EF (Auto-EF), and visual estimation by two readers.
resultsWe enrolled 268 patients. Auto-EF measurement was feasible in 240 (89.5%) patients. The averaged LVEF was (52% ± 12) with the visual assessment, (51% ± 11) with Auto-EF and (57% ± 13) with M-mode. Using Bland-Altman analysis, we found that the difference between the mean visual and the Auto-EF was not significant (-0.3% [-0.5803-0.0053],
conclusionThe two-dimensional echocardiographic methods using Biplane Auto-EF or visual assessment were significantly comparable, whereas M-mode results in an overestimation of the LVEF.
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.