ArticleJournal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance2021
Multivendor comparison of global and regional 2D cardiovascular magnetic resonance feature tracking strains vs tissue tagging at 3T.
Article in Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Manual long axis strain compared to automated feature-tracking deformation imaging for identification of masked left heart involvement in pulmonary hypertension.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2026Article
- Layer-specific fast strain-encoded cardiovascular magnetic resonance in suspected acute coronary syndrome: a prospective study.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2026Article
- A multicenter study on the comparability of myocardial strain values acquired with different CMR scanners and analyzed with different post-processing software: insights into the "Traveling Volunteers" study.International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery · 2026Article
- Head-to-head comparison of left ventricular strain assessed by CMR post-processing tools and fast strain-ENCoded imagingEuropean heart journal. Imaging methods and practice · 2026Article
- How we scan cardiac anatomy and function using cardiovascular magnetic resonance: a practical video guide.European heart journal. Imaging methods and practice · 2025Article
- Right Ventricular and Left Atrial Strain Predict Volumetric Response to Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2025Article
- [Preliminary Study of Dilated Cardiomyopathy at a High Altitude Based on Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Feature Tracking].Sichuan da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Sichuan University. Medical science edition · 2025Article
- Post-Myocardial Infarction Remodeling and Hyperkinetic Remote Myocardium in Sheep Measured by Cardiac MRI Feature Tracking.Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI · 2025Article
- Retrospective temporal resolution interpolation alters myocardial strain quantification on compressed sensing cine CMR.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2025Article
- Improve myocardial strain estimation based on deformable groupwise registration with a locally low-rank dissimilarity metric.BMC medical imaging · 2024Article
- A simplified approach to discriminate between healthy subjects and patients with heart failure using cardiac magnetic resonance myocardial deformation imaging.European heart journal. Imaging methods and practice · 2024Article
- The Interfield Strength Agreement of Left Ventricular Strain Measurements at 1.5 T and 3 T Using Cardiac MRI Feature Tracking.Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI · 2023Article
- Quantitative Assessment of Left and Right Atrial Strains Using Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance Based Tissue Tracking.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 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
9 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) 2D feature tracking (FT) left ventricular (LV) myocardial strain has seen widespread use to characterize myocardial deformation. Yet, validation of CMR FT measurements remains scarce, particularly for regional strain. Therefore, we aimed to perform intervendor comparison of 3 different FT software against tagging.
methodsIn 61 subjects (18 healthy subjects, 18 patients with chronic myocardial infarction, 15 with dilated cardiomyopathy, and 10 with LV hypertrophy due to hypertrophic cardiomyopathy or aortic stenosis) were prospectively compared global (G) and regional transmural peak-systolic Lagrangian longitudinal (LS), circumferential (CS) and radial strains (RS) by 3 FT software (cvi42, Segment, and Tomtec) among each other and with tagging at 3T. We also evaluated the ability of regional LS, CS, and RS by different FT software vs tagging to identify late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) in the 18 infarct patients.
resultsGLS and GCS by all 3 software had an excellent agreement among each other (ICC = 0.94-0.98 for GLS and ICC = 0.96-0.98 for GCS respectively) and against tagging (ICC = 0.92-0.94 for GLS and ICC = 0.88-0.91 for GCS respectively), while GRS showed inconsistent agreement between vendors (ICC 0.10-0.81). For regional LS, the agreement was good (ICC = 0.68) between 2 vendors but less vs the 3
conclusionsWe confirm good agreement of CMR FT and little intervendor difference for GLS and GCS evaluation, with variable agreement for GRS. For regional strain evaluation, intervendor difference was larger, especially for RS, and the diagnostic performance varied more substantially among different vendors for regional strain analysis.
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.