ArticleHeart and vessels2020
Standard echocardiography versus very-low mechanical index contrast-imaging: left ventricle volumes and ejection fraction multi-reader variability and reference values in a subgroup with no risk factors or cardiac disease.
Article in Heart and vessels, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- How to Perform Cardiac Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound (cCEUS): Part I.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We retrospectively assessed the rest-phase images of 300 contrast stress- echocardiograms, during which very-low mechanical index (VLMI) imaging with ultrasound enhancing agents (UEAs) was routinely acquired in addition to greyscale echocardiography; intra- and inter-reader variability for left ventricle (LV) volumes and ejection fraction (LVEF) at rest was established in the overall cohort and normal values were calculated in the subset of subjects with no cardiac risk factors or cardiac disease and a normal stress-echocardiogram. Current recommendations for chamber quantification using echocardiography advise the use of UEAs in case of insufficient quality of endocardial visualization, but normal values for LV volumes and LVEF using UEAs have never been published using currently recommended VLMI method. Single-centre retrospective study, enrolling subjects referred to contrast stress- echocardiography for suspect coronary artery disease, including the acquisition of both standard 2D greyscale and bolus UEAs with VLMI, regardless of the image quality. This enables offline measurement of the LV volumes and LVEF for both greyscale and UEAs-VLMI images at rest in all subjects. Images were allocated to 3 readers in random order. Normal range for LV volumes and LVEF was also derived in a subset of apparently healthy subjects. In the 298 exams finally assessed, measurement variability among the three readers was lower with UEAs-VLMI, in particular for end-systolic volumes (intra-class correlation coefficient for concordance improved from 0.855 to 0.916, for LVEF from 0.68 to 0.783, p < 0.01), intra- observer variability reduced (Lin's correlation coefficient for LVEF from 0.747 to 0.857, p < 0.01). Normal mean indexed LV end-diastolic volume with UEAs-VLMI, compared to greyscale imaging, was + 14 ml/m
Indexed as
Identifiers
31531717What 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.