ArticleScientific reports2020
A direct comparison of natural and acoustic-radiation-force-induced cardiac mechanical waves.
Article in Scientific reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cardiac Shear Wave Elastography: Principles, Clinical Applications, and Practical Considerations for Interpretation.Echocardiography (Mount Kisco, N.Y.) · 2026Review
- Advances in Non-Invasive Myocardial Stiffness Assessment and Clinical Applications in Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Review
- Towards non-invasive assessment of myocardial work using myocardial stiffness and strain: a human pilot study.European heart journal. Cardiovascular Imaging · 2025Article
- Continuous shear wave measurements for dynamic cardiac stiffness evaluation in pigs.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Evaluation of Myocardial Stiffness in Cardiac Amyloidosis Using Acoustic Radiation Force Impulse and Natural Shear Wave Imaging.Ultrasound in medicine & biology · 2023Article
- Clinical studies of magnetic resonance elastography from 1995 to 2021: Scientometric and visualization analysis based on CiteSpace.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2022Article
- Impact of shear wave dispersion slope analysis for assessing the severity of myocarditis.Scientific reports · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Natural and active shear wave elastography (SWE) are potential ultrasound-based techniques to non-invasively assess myocardial stiffness, which could improve current diagnosis of heart failure. This study aims to bridge the knowledge gap between both techniques and discuss their respective impacts on cardiac stiffness evaluation. We recorded the mechanical waves occurring after aortic and mitral valve closure (AVC, MVC) and those induced by acoustic radiation force throughout the cardiac cycle in four pigs after sternotomy. Natural SWE showed a higher feasibility than active SWE, which is an advantage for clinical application. Median propagation speeds of 2.5-4.0 m/s and 1.6-4.0 m/s were obtained after AVC and MVC, whereas ARF-based median speeds of 0.9-1.2 m/s and 2.1-3.8 m/s were reported for diastole and systole, respectively. The different wave characteristics in both methods, such as the frequency content, complicate the direct comparison of waves. Nevertheless, a good match was found in propagation speeds between natural and active SWE at the moment of valve closure, and the natural waves showed higher propagation speeds than in diastole. Furthermore, the results demonstrated that the natural waves occur in between diastole and systole identified with active SWE, and thus represent a myocardial stiffness in between relaxation and contraction.
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.