ArticleThe international journal of cardiovascular imaging2022
The variability of 2D and 3D transthoracic echocardiography applied in a general population : Intermodality, inter- and intraobserver variability.
Article in The international journal of cardiovascular imaging, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- PRIME 2.0: Proposed Requirements for Cardiovascular Imaging-Related Multimodal-AI Evaluation: An Updated Checklist.JACC. Cardiovascular imaging · 2026Guideline
- AI-enabled left atrial volume quantification from CAC CT: comparison with echocardiography.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2026Article
- Special article-EchoPeer: a standardized framework for assessing echocardiography reports in the era of artificial intelligence: a recommendation from the Korean Society of Echocardiography AI and Future Strategy Committee.Journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2026Review
- Myocarditis Prognostic Score: A New Risk Assessment Tool.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2026Article
- Reproducibility of echocardiographic measurements of left ventricular systolic function: a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing artificial intelligence and clinician estimates.European heart journal. Digital health · 2026Review
- Multidetector Computed Tomography and Aortic Stenosis: The Emerging Potential of Bridging Morphology and Severity Grading.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Cardiopulmonary recirculation in patients with chronic heart failure and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction: the "Monday Morning Phenomenon".BMC nephrology · 2025Observational
- Changes in Cardiac Function and Exercise Capacity Following Ferric Carboxymaltose Administration in HFrEF Patients with Iron Deficiency.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Artemisinin alleviates arsenic-induced myocardial injury in rats by modulating oxidative stress and inflammatory responses.Acta biochimica et biophysica Sinica · 2024Article
- Artificial Intelligence Advancements in Cardiomyopathies: Implications for Diagnosis and Management of Arrhythmogenic Cardiomyopathy.Current heart failure reports · 2024Review
- Clinical, Safety, and Engineering Perspectives on Wearable Ultrasound Technology: A Review.IEEE transactions on ultrasonics, ferroelectrics, and frequency control · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Assessment of the left ventricular (LV) function by three-dimensional echocardiography (3DE) is potentially superior to 2D echo echocardiography (2DE) for LV performance assessment. However, intra- and interobserver variation needs further investigation. We examined the intra- and interobserver variability between 2 and 3DE in a general population. In total, 150 participants from the Copenhagen City Heart Study were randomly chosen. Two observers assessed left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), end-diastolic (EDV) and end-systolic volumes (ESV) by 2DE and 3DE. Inter-, intraobserver and intermodality variabilities are presented as means of difference (MD), limits of agreement (LoA), coefficient of correlation (r), intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). The lowest MD and LoA and highest r- and ICC-values was generally seen among the 3D acquisitions, with the 3D EDV interobserver as the best performing estimate (r = 0.95, ICC = 0.94). The largest MD, LoA and lowest r- and ICC-values was found in the interobserver 2D LVEF (r = 0.76, ICC = 0.63. For the intraobserver analysis, there were statistically significant differences between observations for all but 3DE EDV (p = 0.06). For interobserver analysis, there were statistically significant differences between observers for all estimates but 2DE EDV (p = 0.11), 3D ejection fraction (p = 0.9), 3DE EDV (p = 0.11) and 3D ESV (p = 0.15). Three-dimensional echocardiography is more robust and reproducible than 2DE and should be preferred for assessment of LV function.
Indexed as
Identifiers
37726455What 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.