ArticleOpen heart2022
Comparison of approaches to determine echocardiographic outcomes for children with latent rheumatic heart disease.
Article in Open heart, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Intramuscular versus enteral penicillin prophylaxis to prevent progression of rheumatic heart disease: Study protocol for a noninferiority randomized trial (the GOALIE trial).American heart journal · 2024Article
- Echocardiographic Screening of Rheumatic Heart Disease: Current Concepts and Challenges.Turkish archives of pediatrics · 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
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundScreening programmes using echocardiography offer opportunity for intervention through identification and treatment of early (latent) rheumatic heart disease (RHD). We aimed to compare two methods for classifying progression or regression of latent RHD: serial review method and blinded, side-by-side review.
methodsA four-member expert panel reviewed 799 enrolment (in 2018) and completion (in 2020) echocardiograms from the GOAL Trial of latent RHD in Uganda to make consensus determination of normal, borderline RHD or definite RHD. Serial interpretations (enrolment and completion echocardiograms read at two different time points, 2 years apart, not beside one another) were compared with blinded side-by-side comparisons (enrolment and completion echocardiograms displayed beside one another in random order on same screen) to determine outcomes according to prespecified definitions of disease progression (worsening), regression (improving) or no change. We calculated inter-rater agreement using Cohen's kappa.
resultsThere were 799 pairs of echocardiogram assessments included. A higher number, 54 vs 38 (6.8% vs 4.5%), were deemed as progression by serial interpretation compared with side-by-side comparison. There was good inter-rater agreement between the serial interpretation and side-by-side comparison methods (kappa 0.89). Disagreement was most often a result of the difference in classification between borderline RHD and mild definite RHD. Most discrepancies between interpretation methods (46 of 47, 98%) resulted from differences in valvular morphological evaluation, with valves judged to be morphologically similar between enrolment and final echocardiograms when compared side by side but classified differently on serial interpretation.
conclusionsThere was good agreement between the methods of serial and side-by-side interpretation of echocardiograms for change over time, using the World Heart Federation criteria. Side-by-side interpretation has higher specificity for change, with fewer differences in the interpretation of valvular morphology, as compared with serial interpretation.
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.