ArticleThe international journal of cardiovascular imaging2021
Feasibility, repeatability, and reproducibility of contemporary diastolic parameters and classification.
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 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Artificial Intelligence-Based Echocardiographic Assessment of Diastolic Dysfunction: A Systematic Review.Echocardiography (Mount Kisco, N.Y.) · 2026Pooled it
- Pulmonary Vein Flow Indices by MRI for Diastolic Function Evaluation.NMR in biomedicine · 2026Article
- Validation of a fully automated workflow for longitudinal strain using artificial intelligence.Journal of echocardiography · 2026Article
- 4D flow MRI-based grading of left ventricular diastolic dysfunction: a validation study against echocardiography.European radiology · 2025Article
- Reproducibility of diastolic function parameters in repeated ECG-gated SPECT myocardial perfusion imaging and echocardiography.Clinical physiology and functional imaging · 2025Article
- Diastolic dysfunction evaluation by cardiovascular magnetic resonance derived E, a, e': Comparison to echocardiography.Physiological reports · 2024Article
- Article
- Reducing echocardiographic examination time through routine use of fully automated software: a comparative study of measurement and report creation time.Journal of echocardiography · 2024Article
- Automated Echocardiographic Detection of Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction Using Artificial Intelligence.JACC. Advances · 2023Article
- A formal validation of a deep learning-based automated workflow for the interpretation of the echocardiogram.Nature communications · 2022Article
- Association between diastolic stress test and H2FPEF score.Archivos de cardiologia de Mexico · 2022Observational
- Predictive Value of Monocyte Chemoattractant Protein-1 in the Development of Diastolic Dysfunction in Patients with Psoriatic Arthritis.Disease markers · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate feasibility, time of acquisition, retest repeatability and reproducibility of echocardiographic indexes and classification algorithms of diastolic function.
methodsA total of 356 patients were examined before coronary artery bypass-grafting and/or aortic valve surgery. A subgroup of 50 was examined with 3 successive echocardiograms in conditions reflecting daily clinical practice. Diastolic parameters were obtained and analysed according to previous (2009) and current (2016) guidelines. Acquisition and analysis time, plus intra- and inter-observer variability were assessed.
resultsFeasibility of diastolic parameters was between 93 and 99%, except the maximal tricuspid regurgitation velocity (TR Vmax) (65%). Mean acquisition and analysis time were highest for left atrial volumes (141 ± 24 s) in contrast to other parameters which were obtained in approximately one minute. Mean 368 and 360 s were needed to classify diastolic function according to the 2009 and 2016 algorithms, respectively (non-significant). Reproducibility was overall moderate (Pearson r = 0.62 to 0.87), with TR Vmax having the highest (r = 0.62) and mitral valve E/A ratio the lowest (r = 0.87) variation. The 2009 algorithm resulted in more indeterminate cases than the 2016 algorithm. Inter-examiner analysis resulted in reclassification of 20 vs. 8 patients using the 2009 and 2016 algorithms, respectively.
conclusionDiastolic parameters are highly feasible and moderately reproducible, except TR Vmax. The 2016 algorithm is more restrictive than the 2009 algorithm in classifying patients with advanced stages of diastolic dysfunction. Time of acquisition according to the two guidelines is not significantly different.
Indexed as
Identifiers
33394217What 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.