ArticleAnatolian journal of cardiology2022
Agreement between visually estimated left ventricular ejection fraction on echocardiography and quantitative measurements using cardiac magnetic resonance.
Article in Anatolian journal of cardiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Inter-Observer Reliability in Myocardial Blood Flow Measurement Using Rb-82-PET/CT.Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.) · 2026Article
- Cardiac multi-structure segmentation network based on the fused dual attention mechanism.Medical & biological engineering & computing · 2026Article
- Cardiopulmonary recirculation in patients with chronic heart failure and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction: the "Monday Morning Phenomenon".BMC nephrology · 2025Observational
- Segmentation-Free Estimation of Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction Using 3D CNN Is Reliable and Improves as Multiple Cardiac MRI Cine Orientations Are Combined.Biomedicines · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveVisual estimation of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) is still used in routine clinical practice. However, most of the studies evaluating the agreement between the visually estimated LVEF (ve-LVEF) and quantitatively measured LVEF (qm-LVEF) either have not used appropriate statistical methods or gold standard imaging modality. In this study, we aimed to assess the agreement between the ve-LVEF and qm-LVEF using contemporary statistical methods and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMRI).
methodsIn 54 subjects who underwent 1.5-T CMRI, echocardiographic images were recorded after the CMRI procedure on the same day. Two independent observers estimated ve-LVEFs on echocardiographic records in a random and blinded fashion, and qm-LVEF was obtained by CMRI. Agreement between the ve-LVEF and qm-LVEF values and intra/interobserver ve-LVEF estimations were assessed using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), Bland-Altman analysis, and kappa statistics.
resultsThere was a high agreement between the ve-LVEF and qm-LVEF (ICC 0.93, 95% confidence interval 0.88-0.96). Bland-Altman analysis also demonstrated a good agreement between ve-LVEF and qm-LVEF with ve-LVEF, on average, being 0.6% lower than that obtained by CMRI (mean -0.6, limits of agreement -10.5 and +9.3). A good agreement was also observed for LVEF categories ≤35%, 36%-54%, and ≥55% (unweighted kappa 0.71, linearly weighted kappa 0.76); and LVEF of <55% and ≥55% (kappa 0.80). Intra/inter observer agreement was good for ve-LVEFs (ICC value 0.96 and 0.91, respectively).
conclusionVisual approach for LVEF assessment may be used for rapid assessment of left ventricular systolic function in clinical practice, particularly in patients with good image quality.
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.