ArticlePediatric cardiology2020
Two-Dimensional Strain is more Precise than Conventional Measures of Left Ventricular Systolic Function in Pediatric Patients.
Article in Pediatric cardiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Longitudinal strain analysis for assessment of early cardiotoxicity during anthracycline treatment in childhood sarcoma: A single center experience.Cancer reports (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2023Article
- Correlating decline in left ventricular ejection fraction and longitudinal strain in pediatric cancer patients.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Ejection fraction (EF) and fractional shortening (FS) are standard methods of quantifying left ventricular (LV) systolic function. 2D global longitudinal strain (2D GLS) is a well-established, but underutilized method for LV function quantification. The aim of this study was to assess precision of GLS compared to EF & FS in pediatrics. Echocardiograms were prospectively analyzed by 2 blinded observers. FS, EF, and GLS were calculated following standard methods. Bland-Altman was applied to assess agreement. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was used to measure reliability. Coefficient of variation was used to demonstrate relative variability between methods. 103 pediatric echos were evaluated for inter-observer reproducibility, and 15 patients for intra-observer reproducibility. GLS had higher inter-observer agreement and reliability (bias 7%, 95% LOA - 3.4 to + 3.5, ICC 0.86 CI 0.80-0.90) compared to EF (bias 27%, 95% LOA - 18.9 to + 19.5; ICC 0.25 CI 0.07-0.43) and FS (bias 12%, 95% LOA - 11.9 to + 12.2; ICC 0.53 CI 0.38-0.66). GLS also had higher intra-observer agreement (bias 4%, 95% LOA - 3.6 to + 3.7; ICC 0.87 CI 0.66-0.96) compared to EF (bias 11%, 95% LOA - 14.9 to + 15.1; ICC 0.26 CI - 0.28-0.67) and FS (bias 12%, 95% LOA - 12.2 to + 12.5; ICC 0.38 CI - 0.15-0.74). GLS is a more precise method for quantifying LV function in pediatrics, with lower variability compared to EF and FS. GLS provides a more reliable evaluation of LV systolic function and should be utilized more widely in pediatrics.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31707490What 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.