Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36978131›Full record

ArticleJournal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance2023

Repeatability and reproducibility of various 4D Flow MRI postprocessing software programs in a multi-software and multi-vendor cross-over comparison study.

Thekla H Oechtering, André Nowak, Malte M Sieren, Andreas M Stroth, Nicolas Kirschke, Franz Wegner, Maren Balks, Inke R König, Ning Jin, Joachim Graessner and 4 more

Open access · goldAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
7.3field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 32 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance reference values ("normal values") in cardiovascular magnetic resonance: 2025 update.Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance · 2025
    Guideline
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Pulmonary 4D-flow MRI imaging in landrace pigs under rest and stress.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2024
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

14 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.

Thekla H OechteringDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Universität zu Lübeck, Ratzeburger Allee 160, 23538, Lübeck, Germany. Thekla.Oechtering@uksh.de.ORCID 0000-0002-1931-1912
André NowakDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Universität zu Lübeck, Ratzeburger Allee 160, 23538, Lübeck, Germany.
Malte M SierenDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Universität zu Lübeck, Ratzeburger Allee 160, 23538, Lübeck, Germany.
Andreas M StrothDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Universität zu Lübeck, Ratzeburger Allee 160, 23538, Lübeck, Germany.
Nicolas KirschkeDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Universität zu Lübeck, Ratzeburger Allee 160, 23538, Lübeck, Germany.
Franz WegnerDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Universität zu Lübeck, Ratzeburger Allee 160, 23538, Lübeck, Germany.
Maren BalksDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Universität zu Lübeck, Ratzeburger Allee 160, 23538, Lübeck, Germany.
Inke R KönigInstitute of Medical Biometry and Statistics, Universität zu Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany.
Ning JinCardiovascular MR R&D, Siemens Medical Solutions USA, Inc, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Joachim GraessnerSiemens Healthcare GmbH, Lindenplatz 2, 20099, Hamburg, Germany.
Hendrik Kooijman-KurfuerstPhilips Healthcare GmbH, Röntgenstrasse 22, 22335, Hamburg, Germany.
Anja HennemuthFraunhofer MEVIS, Am Fallturm 1, 28359, Bremen, Germany.
Jörg BarkhausenDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Universität zu Lübeck, Ratzeburger Allee 160, 23538, Lübeck, Germany.
Alex FrydrychowiczDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Universität zu Lübeck, Ratzeburger Allee 160, 23538, Lübeck, Germany.
University of Lübeck · DEFraunhofer Institute for Digital Medicine · DEPhilips (Germany) · DESiemens Healthcare (United States) · USSiemens Healthineers (Germany) · DEUniversity of Wisconsin–Madison · US

Funding

Universität zu Lübeck, Sektion Medizin J31-2018
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDifferent software programs are available for the evaluation of 4D Flow cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR). A good agreement of the results between programs is a prerequisite for the acceptance of the method. Therefore, the goal was to compare quantitative results from a cross-over comparison in individuals examined on two scanners of different vendors analyzed with four postprocessing software packages.

methodsEight healthy subjects (27 ± 3 years, 3 women) were each examined on two 3T CMR systems (Ingenia, Philips Healthcare; MAGNETOM Skyra, Siemens Healthineers) with a standardized 4D Flow CMR sequence. Six manually placed aortic contours were evaluated with Caas (Pie Medical Imaging, SW-A), cvi42 (Circle Cardiovascular Imaging, SW-B), GTFlow (GyroTools, SW-C), and MevisFlow (Fraunhofer Institute MEVIS, SW-D) to analyze seven clinically used parameters including stroke volume, peak flow, peak velocity, and area as well as typically scientifically used wall shear stress values. Statistical analysis of inter- and intrareader variability, inter-software and inter-scanner comparison included calculation of absolute and relative error (E

resultsSW-A and SW-C were the only software programs showing agreement for stroke volume (ICC = 0.96; E

conclusionsOf all tested software programs, only SW-A and SW-C can be used equivalently for determination of stroke volume, peak flow, and vessel area. Irrespective of the applied software and scanner, high intra- and interreader variability for all parameters have to be taken into account before introducing 4D Flow CMR in clinical routine. Especially in multicenter clinical trials a single image evaluation software should be applied.

Indexed as

Magnetic Resonance ImagingSoftwareAortaFemaleHumansPredictive Value of TestsReproducibility of Results4D Flow CMRAortaBlood flow velocityFlow quantificationInter-rater comparisonInter-scanner comparisonInter-software comparisonIntra-rater comparisonPhase-contrast magnetic resonance imagingWall shear stress

Identifiers

PMID36978131
PMCPMC10052852
OpenAlexW4361216182

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.