ArticleJournal of cardiovascular echography
Comparison between Visual Assessment and Longitudinal Strain during Dobutamine Stress Echocardiography.
Article in Journal of cardiovascular echography. 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.
- Visual Assessment and Longitudinal Strain During Dobutamine Stress Echocardiography.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The relationship between visual assessment and longitudinal strain during dobutamine stress echocardiography (DSE) remains poorly investigated. This study assessed wall motion segments visually graded as normokinetic, hypokinetic, and akinetic at baseline and the peak of DSE and compared with longitudinal strain between segments with and without induced impaired contractility and improved contractility during DSE. Methods: This study included 112 patients examined by DSE, consisting of 58 patients referred for diagnostic study and 54 patients referred for viability study. Regional left ventricular (LV) contractility was assessed visually and longitudinal strain was measured using echocardiography transthoracic. Results: At baseline, the strain of LV segments was -16.33 ± 6.26 in visually normokinetic, 13.05 ± 6.44 in visually hypokinetic, and -8.46 ± 5.69 in visually akinetic segments. During peak dose, the strain of LV segments was -15.37 ± 6.89 in visually normokinetic, -11.37 ± 5.11 in visually hypokinetic, and -7.37 ± 3.92 in visually akinetic segments. In segments with visually observed impaired contractility, the median longitudinal strain was significantly lower than in segments without impaired contractility. For segments with visually observed improved contractility, the median longitudinal strain was significantly higher than for segments without improved contractility. In diagnostic study, sensitivity of visual assessment for absolute decrease of >2% longitudinal strain was 77%, respectively. In the viability study, the sensitivity was 82% for an absolute decrease of ≥2% longitudinal strain. Conclusions: There is good association between strain analysis value and visually assessed wall motion contractility.
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.