ArticlePloS one2020
Influence of observer-dependency on left ventricular hypertrabeculation mass measurement and its relationship with left ventricular volume and ejection fraction - comparison between manual and semiautomatic CMR image analysis methods.
Article in PloS one, 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.
- Searching for genetic determinants for left ventricular non-compaction.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2024Article
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
backgroundRecent studies concerning left ventricular noncompaction (LVNC) suggest that the extent of left ventricular (LV) hypertrabeculation has no impact on prognosis. The variety of methods of LV noncompacted myocardial mass (NCM) assessment may influence the results. Hence, we compared two methods of NCM estimation: largely observer-independent Hautvast's(H) computed algorithm-based approach and commonly used Jacquier's(J) method, and their associations with LV end-diastolic volume (EDV) and ejection fraction (EF).
methodsCardiac magnetic resonance images of 77 persons (45±17yo) - 42 LVNC, 15 non-ischemic dilative cardiomyopathy, 20 control group were analyzed. LVNC patients were divided into the subgroup with normal (LVNCN) and high EDV (LVNCDCM). NCM and total left ventricular mass (LVM) were estimated by Hautvast's [excluding intertrabecular blood (ITB) and including papillary muscles (PMs) into NCM] and Jacquier's approach (including ITB and PMs, if unclearly distinguished, into NCM).
resultsThe cut-off value of NCM for LVNC diagnosis was 22% (AUC 0.933) for NCMH/LVMH and 26% (AUC 0.883) for NCMJ/LVMJ. Inter- and intra-observer variability (estimated by coefficient of variation [CoV] and intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC]) of NCMH/LVMH appeared better than of NCMJ/LVMJ (CoV 4.3%, ICC 0.981 and CoV 4.9%, ICC 0.978; respectively for NCMH/LVMH, while for NCMJ/LVMJ: CoV 19.7%, ICC 0.15 and CoV 12.9%, ICC 0.504). In LVNCN subgroup, the correlation between EDV and NCMH was stronger than NCMJ (r = 0.677, p<0.001 vs. r = 0.480, p = 0.038; respectively). In LVNC the EDV correlated with NCMH/LVMH (r = 0.391, p<0.01), but not with NCMJ/LVMJ. In the overall group a relationship was present between EF and NCMH/LVMH (r = -0.449, p<0.001), but not NCMJ/LVMJ. Only NCMH/LVMH explained the variability of EDV (b 0.434, p<0.001).
conclusionsChoosing a method of NCM assessment that is less observer-dependent might increase the reliability of results. The impact of method selection on the LV parameters and cut-off values for hypertrabeculation should be further investigated.
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.