ArticleBMC medical imaging2020
Quantitative comparison of two-dimensional and three-dimensional strain measurement using MRI feature tracking in repair Fontan patients and normal child volunteers.
Article in BMC medical imaging, 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.
- Early diagnosis of acute experimental autoimmune myocarditis in mice with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction: a feasibility study based on 9.4 T magnetic resonance.Cardiovascular diagnosis and therapy · 2026Article
- Left ventricular myocardial strain quantification with two- and three-dimensional cardiovascular magnetic resonance based tissue tracking.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe accuracy of 2D and 3D strain analyses was evaluated by comparing strain and cardiac function parameters in Fontan repair patients and normal child volunteers.
methodsWe retrospectively enrolled 32 patients with Fontan circulation and 32 child volunteers who had undergone clinical cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) assessment of the dominant ventricle with a 1.5-Tesla MRI scanner. Global and regional strain (2D and 3D) of the dominant ventricle in both groups was assessed using CMR feature-tracking. Correlations between cardiac function and strain data were assessed using Pearson's correlation coefficient values. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and coefficient of variation (CoV) were determined to evaluate repeatability and agreement.
resultsThe 2D GLS showed significant differences between the Fontan repair patients and volunteers (- 16.49 ± 5.00 vs. -19.49 ± 2.03; p = 0.002). The 2D GRS and 2D GCS showed no significant differences between two groups. 2D GRS: 38.96 ± 14.48 vs. 37.46 ± 7.77; 2D GCS: - 17.64 ± 5.00 vs. -16.89 ± 2.96, respectively; p > 0.05). The 3D global radial strain (GRS), global circumferential strain (GCS), and global longitudinal strain (GLS) showed significant differences between the Fontan repair patients and volunteers (3D GRS: 36.35 ± 16.72 vs. 44.96 ± 9.98; 3D GLS: - 8.86 ± 6.84 vs. -13.67 ± 2.44; 3D GCS: - 13.70 ± 7.84 vs. -18.01 ± 1.78; p < 0.05, respectively). The ejection fraction (EF) and 3D GCS were significantly associated (r = - 0.491, p = 0.004). The 3D GCS showed correlations with the indexed end-diastolic volume (EDV) (r = 0.523, p = 0.002) and indexed end-systolic volume (ESV) (r = 0.602, p < 0.001). 3D strain showed good reproducibility, with GCS showing the best inter-observer agreement (ICC = 0.87 and CoV = 5.15), followed by GLS (ICC = 0.84 and CoV = 5.36).
conclusions3D GCS is feasible, highly reproducible, and strongly correlated with conventional cardiac function measures. 3D GCS assessments may be useful for monitoring abnormal myocardial motion in patients with Fontan circulation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.