ArticleBMC anesthesiology2023
Comparison of visual estimation and quantitative measurement of left ventricular ejection fraction in untrained perioperative echocardiographers.
Article in BMC anesthesiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Association of echocardiographic findings with mortality: human assessment vs. automated deep learning analysis.European heart journal. Digital health · 2026Article
- Point-of-Care Transesophageal Echocardiography in Emergency and Intensive Care: An Evolving Imaging Modality.Biomedicines · 2025Review
- AI-Assisted LVEF Assessment Using a Handheld Ultrasound Device: A Single-Center Comparative Study Against Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Visual grading of valvular regurgitation is inferior to measurement - results from the VIAVA-study (VIsual Assessment of VAlvular Regurgitation).Echo research and practice · 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
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPerioperative evaluation of the left ventricular systolic function is essential information to help diagnose and manage life-threatening perioperative emergencies. Although quantifying the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) is recommended to determine the left ventricular function, it may not always be feasible in emergency perioperative settings. This study compared the visual estimation of LVEF (eyeballing) by noncardiac anesthesiologists with the quantitative LVEF measured using a modified Simpson's biplane method.
methodsTransesophageal echocardiographic (TEE) studies of 35 patients were selected and 3 different echocardiographic views (the mid-esophageal four chamber view, the mid-esophageal two chamber view, and the transgastric mid-papillary short axis view) were recovered from each study and displayed in random order. Two cardiac anesthesiologists certified in perioperative echocardiography independently measured LVEF using the modified Simpson method and categorized LVEF into five grades: hyperdynamic LVEF, normal, mildly reduced LVEF, moderately reduced LVEF and severely reduced LVEF. Seven noncardiac anesthesiologists with limited experience in echocardiography also reviewed the same TEE studies and estimated the LVEF and graded LV function. The precision of the LV function classification and the correlation between visual estimation of LVEF and quantitative LVEF were calculated. The agreement of measurements between the two methods was also assessed.
resultsPearson's correlation between the LVEF estimated by the participants and the quantitative LVEF using the modified Simpson method was 0.818 (p < 0.001). Of a total of 245 responses, 120 (49.0%) responses were correct grading of the LV function. Participants were able to classify the LV function more accurately in the LV function grades 1 and 5 (65.3%). The 95% level of agreement of the Bland-Altman method was - 11.3-24.5. -21.9-22.6, - 23.1-26.5, - 20.5-22.0 and - 26.6-11.1 for LV grade 1 to 5, respectively.
conclusionVisual estimation of LVEF in perioperative TEE has acceptable accuracy in untrained echocardiographers and can be used for rescue TEE.
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.