ArticleClinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society2023
Reliability of estimating left ventricular ejection fraction in clinical routine: a validation study of the SWEDEHEART registry.
Article in Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Strain-Volume Loop Dynamics: A Novel Perspective on Left Ventricular Dysfunction.Korean circulation journal · 2026Article
- A structured 5-question approach for echocardiographic evaluation of undifferentiated shock.Echo research and practice · 2026Review
- Androgen-Modulating Drugs and Severe Complications After ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction.JAMA network open · 2026Article
- Long-term prognostic impact of one-year change in left ventricular function after a myocardial infarction: insights from the REBUS cohort.European heart journal. Imaging methods and practice · 2026Article
- Routine echocardiographic measurements in clinical practice: reproducibility of left and right ventricular indices and agreement with cardiac magnetic resonance.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- Beyond volumes and ejection fraction: practical insights into cine-CMR interpretation and applications.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2025Review
- Deep Learning-Based Breath-Hold and Free-Breathing Cine MRI for Comprehensive Cardiac Evaluation.Korean journal of radiology · 2025Article
- Observational
- Minimal dose CT for left ventricular ejection fraction and combination with chest-abdomen-pelvis CT.European journal of radiology open · 2024Article
- Accurate fully automated assessment of left ventricle, left atrium, and left atrial appendage function from computed tomography using deep learning.European heart journal. Imaging methods and practice · 2024Article
- Left ventricular ejection fraction: clinical, pathophysiological, and technical limitations.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2024Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivePatients hospitalized with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) in Sweden routinely undergo an echocardiographic examination with assessment of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). LVEF is a measurement widely used for outcome prediction and treatment guidance. The obtained LVEF is categorized as normal (> 50%) or mildly, moderately, or severely impaired (40-49, 30-39, and < 30%, respectively) and reported to the nationwide registry for ACS (SWEDEHEART). The purpose of this study was to determine the reliability of the reported LVEF values by validating them against an independent re-evaluation of LVEF.
methodsA random sample of 130 patients from three hospitals were included. LVEF re-evaluation was performed by two independent reviewers using the modified biplane Simpson method and their mean LVEF was compared to the LVEF reported to SWEDEHEART. Agreement between reported and re-evaluated LVEF was assessed using Gwet's AC2 statistics.
resultsAnalysis showed good agreement between reported and re-evaluated LVEF (AC2: 0.76 [95% CI 0.69-0.84]). The LVEF re-evaluations were in agreement with the registry reported LVEF categorization in 86 (66.0%) of the cases. In 33 (25.4%) of the cases the SWEDEHEART-reported LVEF was lower than re-evaluated LVEF. The opposite relation was found in 11 (8.5%) of the cases (p < 0.005).
conclusionIndependent validation of SWEDEHEART-reported LVEF shows an overall good agreement with the re-evaluated LVEF. However, a tendency towards underestimation of LVEF was observed, with the largest discrepancy between re-evaluated LVEF and registry LVEF in subjects with subnormal LV-function in whom the reported assessment of LVEF should be interpreted more cautiously.
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.