Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31795932›Full record

ArticleBMC cardiovascular disorders2019

Time to shape up - assessment and reporting standards for data quality in clinical research using echocardiographic imaging techniques require improvement.

Kai O Hensel

Abstract readLetterComment
In one paragraph

Article in BMC cardiovascular disorders, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Kai O HenselDepartment of Paediatrics, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Hills Road, Cambridge, CB2 0QQ, UK. Kai.Hensel@uni-wh.de.ORCID 0000-0001-5826-6133

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Advanced echocardiography techniques such as speckle tracking imaging are sensitive diagnostic tools frequently used in various clinical and scientific scenarios. Importantly, imperfect reproducibility and dependence of post-processing algorithms on echocardiographic image quality are potential methodological limitations. Therefore, meticulous assessment of data quality and detailed reporting of study methodology, sample specifics, technical peculiarities and measurement conditions are crucial. Unfortunately, despite the recognized importance of this, there is still no broadly accepted standard for assessing the quality of echocardiographic images in clinical research reports. This article quintessentially highlights important shortcomings of data quality assessment and methodological study design, commonly occurring in clinical research reports using advanced echocardiography techniques. Finally, suggestions are made as to how researchers, scientific communities and biomedical journals can contribute to the ever-lasting process of improving the quality of clinical research in cardiovascular imaging.

Indexed as

Cardiomyopathy, HypertrophicData AccuracyEchocardiographyHumansReproducibility of ResultsSystoleBiasClinical trialsEchocardiographyQuality assessmentQuality improvementStrain imagingValidityVariability

Identifiers

PMID31795932
PMCPMC6891971

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.