ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2021
Electrocardiographic Versus Echocardiographic Left Ventricular Hypertrophy in Severe Aortic Stenosis.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2021. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Automated estimation of computed tomography-derived left ventricular mass using sex-specific 12-lead ECG-based temporal convolutional network.European heart journal. Digital health · 2026Article
- Electrocardiography versus Echocardiography in Severe Aortic Stenosis with the Consideration of Coexistent Coronary Artery Disease.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Diagnostic Ability of Peguero-Lo Presti Electrocardiographic Left Ventricular Hypertrophy Criterion in Severe Aortic Stenosis.Journal of clinical 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
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Although ECG used to be a traditional method to detect left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH), its importance has decreased over the years and echocardiography has emerged as a routine technique to diagnose LVH. Intriguingly, an independent negative prognostic effect of the "electrical" LVH (i.e., by ECG voltage criteria) beyond echocardiographic LVH was demonstrated both in hypertension and aortic stenosis (AS), the most prevalent heart valve disorder. Our aim was to estimate associations of the ECG-LVH voltage criteria with echocardiographic LVH and indices of AS severity. We retrospectively manually analyzed ECG tracings of 50 patients hospitalized in our center for severe isolated aortic stenosis, including 32 subjects with echocardiographic LVH. The sensitivity of single traditional ECG-LVH criteria in detecting echocardiographic LVH was 9-34% and their respective specificity averaged 78-100%. The ability to predict echocardiographic LVH was higher for S-waves than R-waves (mean area under the receiver operating curve (AUC): 0.62-0.70 vs. 0.58-0.65). Among combinations of R- and S-waves, the discriminating ability was highest for the Cornell voltage (AUC: 0.71) compared to the Sokolow-Lyon, Romhilt and Gubner-Ungerleider voltage (AUC: 0.62-0.68). By multiple regression, peak aortic pressure gradient was positively related to the Sokolow-Lyon (β = 1.7 ± 0.5,
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.