ArticlePloS one2020
Comparison of the within-reader and inter-vendor agreement of left ventricular circumferential strains and volume indices derived from cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging.
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- MRI-based strain measurements reflect morphological changes following myocardial infarction: A study on the UK Biobank cohort.Journal of anatomy · 2023Article
- Deep learning automates detection of wall motion abnormalitiesFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2022Article
- Acute regional changes in myocardial strain may predict ventricular remodelling after myocardial infarction in a large animal model.Scientific reports · 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
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeVolume indices and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) are routinely used to assess cardiac function. Ventricular strain values may provide additional diagnostic information, but their reproducibility is unclear. This study therefore compares the repeatability and reproducibility of volumes, volume fraction, and regional ventricular strains, derived from cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging, across three software packages and between readers.
methodsSeven readers analysed 16 short-axis CMR stacks of a porcine heart. Endocardial contours were manually drawn using OsiriX and Simpleware ScanIP and repeated in both softwares. The images were also contoured automatically in Circle CVI42. Endocardial global, apical, mid-ventricular, and basal circumferential strains, as well as end-diastolic and end-systolic volume and LVEF were compared.
resultsBland-Altman analysis found systematic biases in contour length between software packages. Compared to OsiriX, contour lengths were shorter in both ScanIP (-1.9 cm) and CVI42 (-0.6 cm), causing statistically significant differences in end-diastolic and end-systolic volumes, and apical circumferential strain (all p<0.006). No differences were found for mid-ventricular, basal or global strains, or left ventricular ejection fraction (all p<0.007). All CVI42 results lay within the ranges of the OsiriX results. Intra-software differences were found to be lower than inter-software differences.
conclusionOsiriX and CVI42 gave consistent results for all strain and volume metrics, with no statistical differences found between OsiriX and ScanIP for mid-ventricular, global or basal strains, or left ventricular ejection fraction. However, volumes were influenced by the choice of contouring software, suggesting care should be taken when comparing volumes across different software.
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.