Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33394217›Full record

ArticleThe international journal of cardiovascular imaging2021

Feasibility, repeatability, and reproducibility of contemporary diastolic parameters and classification.

Hashmat S Z Bahrami, Frederik H G Pedersen, Katrine A Myhr, Rasmus Møgelvang, Christian Hassager

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Association between diastolic stress test and H2FPEF score.Archivos de cardiologia de Mexico · 2022
    Observational
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Hashmat S Z BahramiDepartment of Cardiology, Rigshospitalet, Blegdamsvej 9, 2100, Copenhagen Ø, Denmark. sayed.hzb@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0141-7110
Frederik H G PedersenDepartment of Cardiology, Rigshospitalet, Blegdamsvej 9, 2100, Copenhagen Ø, Denmark.
Katrine A MyhrDepartment of Cardiology, Rigshospitalet, Blegdamsvej 9, 2100, Copenhagen Ø, Denmark.
Rasmus MøgelvangDepartment of Cardiology, Rigshospitalet, Blegdamsvej 9, 2100, Copenhagen Ø, Denmark.
Christian HassagerDepartment of Cardiology, Rigshospitalet, Blegdamsvej 9, 2100, Copenhagen Ø, Denmark.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Atrial Function, LeftEchocardiography, Doppler, PulsedVentricular Function, LeftAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAlgorithmsDiastoleFeasibility StudiesFemaleHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedMaleMiddle AgedMitral ValvePredictive Value of TestsClassificationDiastolic dysfunctionEchocardiographyFeasibilityHeart failureReproducibility

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.