Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30390189›Full record

ReviewJournal of echocardiography2019

Echocardiographic assessment of left ventricular systolic function.

Lars Gunnar Klaeboe, Thor Edvardsen

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of echocardiography, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 83 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
83citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
7.0field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

83 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 163 citations in OpenAlex.

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

23 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Lars Gunnar KlaeboeDepartment of Cardiology and Center for Cardiological Innovation, Oslo University Hospital, Rikshospitalet, PO Box 4950, 0424, Oslo, Norway.
Thor EdvardsenDepartment of Cardiology and Center for Cardiological Innovation, Oslo University Hospital, Rikshospitalet, PO Box 4950, 0424, Oslo, Norway. thor.edvardsen@medisin.uio.no.
Oslo University Hospital · NO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction (LVEF) is the most validated and commonly used echocardiographic measure of systolic function. LVEF has a unique position in cardiology having severed as selection criteria for therapeutic trials that constitute the evidence base of today's treatment recommendations. Assessment of LV systolic function by global longitudinal strain (GLS) from speckle tracking echocardiography (STE) is a sensitive and feasible method that overcomes many of the limitations of LVEF, including reproducibility issues of serial testing and detection of LV dysfunction in pathologically remodeled hearts. This review discusses the role of STE as a complementary method to LVEF in estimation of LV systolic function.

Indexed as

EchocardiographyHeart VentriclesHumansStroke VolumeSystoleVentricular Dysfunction, LeftVentricular Function, LeftEjection fractionGlobal longitudinal strainSpeckle tracking echocardiographySystolic function

Identifiers

PMID30390189
OpenAlexW2899487182

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.