ArticleScientific reports2022
Optimization of the method of measuring left ventricular end-diastolic diameter in cardiac magnetic resonance as a predictor of left ventricular enlargement.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The objective of the study was to optimize the method of measuring left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD) in cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) as a predictor of left ventricular end-diastolic volume (LVEDV). The study group consisted of 78 patients (age 55.28 ± 17.18) who underwent 1.5 T CMR examination. LVEDD measurements in the short axis, in the long axis in the 2-chamber, 3-chamber and 4-chamber views were made by 2 radiologists. The repeatability of LVEDD measurements was assessed. The sensitivity and specificity of various methods of measuring LVEDD as a predictor of left ventricular enlargement (diagnosed based on LVEDV) were assessed. The correlation coefficients between LVEDD measurements made by researcher A and B were 0.98 for the long axis measurements in the 2-chamber and 3-chamber view, and 0.99 for measurements made in the short axis and in the long axis in the 4-chamber view. The lowest LVEDD measurements variability was recorded for the short axis measurements (RD 0.02, CV 1.38%), and the highest for the long axis measurements in the 3-chamber view (RD 0.04, CV 2.53%). In the male subgroup, the highest accuracy in predicting left ventricular enlargement was characterized by the criterion "LVEDD measured in the long axis in the 2-chamber view > 68.0 mm" (accuracy 94.1%). In the female subgroup, the highest accuracy in predicting left ventricular enlargement was achieved by the criterion "LVEDD measured in the short axis > 63.5 mm" (96.3%). In summary, the measurement made in the short axis should be considered the optimal method to LVEDD measure in CMR, considering the repeatability of measurements and the accuracy of left ventricular enlargement prediction.
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.