ArticleThe international journal of cardiovascular imaging2021
Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging with standard imaging planes for mitral valve scallop pathology: interrater agreement and comparison with echocardiography.
Article in The international journal of cardiovascular imaging, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Multimodality Imaging of Mitral Regurgitation.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging in mitral valve disease.European heart journal · 2025Review
- The Role of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Assessment of Mitral Regurgitation.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Role of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance in Native Valvular Regurgitation: A Comprehensive Review of Protocols, Grading of Severity, and Prediction of Valve Surgery.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2022Review
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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) is applied in mitral valve regurgitation (MR) to quantify regurgitation volume/fraction and cardiac volumes, but individual scallop pathology is evaluated by echocardiography. To evaluate CMR for determination of individual scallop pathology, interrater variability on evaluation of scallop pathology from echocardiography and a standard clinical CMR protocol including a transversal stack was compared. 318 mitral scallops from 53 patients with primary MR were evaluated by two cardiologists evaluating echocardiography scans and two other cardiologists evaluating CMR scans (blinded). Inter-rater variability was determined with percentage agreement and Cohen's kappa. In evaluable scallops, interrater agreement on the diagnosis of a prolapsing and/or flail scallop was 77-87% and kappa values of 0.27-0.67, irrespective of physician or modality. Important differences between modalities were primarily related to CMR-evaluators judging the A3 and the P3 to be normal when echocardiography demonstrated prolapsing or even flail scallops; poor imaging of calcification; and flailed scallops occasionally being undetected with CMR since the flow-voids may mask the scallop. Inter-rater agreement for scallop pathology in primary MR is comparable for echocardiography and standard magnetic resonance imaging scans, but CMR has important pitfalls relating to evaluation of A3 and P3 scallops, and suffers from poor visualization of calcification and lower spatial resolution than echo. CMR with standard planes cannot replace CMR with longitudinal planes or echo for the evaluation of specific scallop pathology in severe primary MR.
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.