ArticleScientific reports2021
Comparison of mitral regurgitation severity assessments based on magnetic resonance imaging and echocardiography in patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy.
Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of Nonclassic and Classic Phenotype of Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy Focused on Prognostic Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Parameters: A Single-Center Observational Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Mitral regurgitation (MR), which is one of the factors responsible for heart failure symptoms and the development of atrial fibrillation, is an important feature of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM), and its presence affects which treatment options are chosen. Although cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is considered the reference standard for assessing the regurgitant volume (RV) and fraction (RF), echocardiography is the most common method for assessing MR severity. Accordingly, the aim of this study was to compare the results of echocardiography and cardiac MRI for assessing MR severity in a cohort of patients with HCM. MR severity was assessed in 53 patients using cardiac MRI by determining the mitral RV (MRV) and mitral RF (MRF). The results were graded according to thresholds recommended in current guidelines. MR severity assessed by echocardiography was graded by integrating indices of severity. Greater than mild MR, as assessed using echocardiography, was present in 22 patients (41.5%) with HCM and in none of the control patients (p = 0.001). In all, 31 patients (58.5%) had no more than mild MR. When MR severity was assessed using different methods, either moderate (kappa = 0.44, 95% confidence interval = 0.21-0.67), poor or no agreement was found between MRI-derived and echocardiography-derived grades. HCM patients with echocardiography-derived moderate and severe MR had similar median MRVs and MRFs (p = 0.59 and p = 0.11, respectively). In HCM patients, cardiac MRI and echocardiography were at most in modest agreement in assessing MR severity. Importantly, echocardiography-derived moderate and severe MR were not distinguishable by either MRV or MRF.
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.