Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29876503›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature2018

Influence of observer experience on cardiac magnetic resonance strain measurements using feature tracking and conventional tagging.

Andreas Feisst, Daniel L R Kuetting, Darius Dabir, Julian Luetkens, Rami Homsi, Hans H Schild, Daniel Thomas

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

7 authors.

Andreas FeisstDepartment of Radiology, University of Bonn, Sigmund-Freud-Str.25, 53127 Bonn, Germany.
Daniel L R KuettingDepartment of Radiology, University of Bonn, Sigmund-Freud-Str.25, 53127 Bonn, Germany.
Darius DabirDepartment of Radiology, University of Bonn, Sigmund-Freud-Str.25, 53127 Bonn, Germany.
Julian LuetkensDepartment of Radiology, University of Bonn, Sigmund-Freud-Str.25, 53127 Bonn, Germany.
Rami HomsiDepartment of Radiology, University of Bonn, Sigmund-Freud-Str.25, 53127 Bonn, Germany.
Hans H SchildDepartment of Radiology, University of Bonn, Sigmund-Freud-Str.25, 53127 Bonn, Germany.
Daniel ThomasDepartment of Radiology, University of Bonn, Sigmund-Freud-Str.25, 53127 Bonn, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimCMR quantitative myocardial strain analysis is increasingly being utilized in clinical routine. CMR feature tracking (FT) is now considered an alternative to the reference standard for strain assessment -CMR tagging. The impact of observer experience on the validity of FT results has not yet been investigated. The aim of this study was therefore to evaluate the observer experience-dependency of CMR FT and to compare results with the reference standard.

methodsCSPAMM and SSFP-Cine sequences were acquired in 38 individuals (19 patients with HFpEF,19 controls) in identical midventricular short-axis locations. Global peak systolic circumferential strain (PSCS) together with LV ejection fraction (EF) and volumes were assessed by three observers (5,3 and 0 years of CMR-strain experience). Intermodality, intra- as well inter-observer variability were assessed.

resultsCorrelation between tagging and FT derived PSCS depended on observer experience (r = 0.69, r = 0.58 and r = 0.53). For the inexperienced observer tagging and FT derived PSCS differed significantly (p = 0.0061). Intra-observer reproducibility of tagging derived PSCS were similar for all observers (coefficient of variation (CV): 6%, 6.8% and 4.9%) while reproducibility of FT derived PSCS (CV: 7.4%, 9.4% and 15.8%) varied depending on observer experience. Inter-observer reproducibility of tagging derived PSCS for observer 1 and 2 as well as 1 and 3 for tagging (CV: 6.17%, 9.18%) was superior in comparison to FT (CV: 11.8%, 16.4%).

conclusionsReliability and accuracy of FT based strain analysis, more than tagging based strain analysis, is dependent on reader experience. CMR strain experience or dedicated training in strain evaluation is necessary for FT to deliver accurate strain data, comparable to that of CMR tagging.

Identifiers

PMID29876503
PMCPMC5988487

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.