Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35190361›Full record

ArticleAnatolian journal of cardiology2022

Agreement between visually estimated left ventricular ejection fraction on echocardiography and quantitative measurements using cardiac magnetic resonance.

Kerim Esenboğa, Mustafa Kılıçkap, Elif Peker, Volkan Kozluca, Çiğdem Koca, Cansın Tulunay Kaya, Demet Menekşe Gerede Uludağ, İrem Dinçer

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 41% of its field
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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. 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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Kerim EsenboğaDepartment Of Cardiology, Faculty Of Medicine, Ankara University, Ankara, Turkey.
Mustafa KılıçkapDepartment Of Cardiology, Faculty Of Medicine, Ankara University, Ankara, Turkey.
Elif PekerDepartment Of Radiology, Faculty Of Medicine, Ankara University, Ankara, Turkey.
Volkan KozlucaDepartment Of Cardiology, Faculty Of Medicine, Ankara University, Ankara, Turkey.
Çiğdem KocaDepartment Of Cardiology, Li̇v Hospital Ankara, Ankara, Turkey.
Cansın Tulunay KayaDepartment Of Cardiology, Faculty Of Medicine, Ankara University, Ankara, Turkey.
Demet Menekşe Gerede UludağDepartment Of Cardiology, Faculty Of Medicine, Ankara University, Ankara, Turkey.
İrem DinçerDepartment Of Cardiology, Faculty Of Medicine, Ankara University, Ankara, Turkey.
Ankara University · TRMemorial Ankara Hospital · TR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Ventricular Dysfunction, LeftVentricular Function, LeftEchocardiographyHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMagnetic Resonance SpectroscopyReproducibility of ResultsStroke Volume

Identifiers

PMID35190361
PMCPMC8878925
OpenAlexW4210880645

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.