ReviewCJC open2023
Echocardiographic Criteria to Differentiate Constrictive Pericarditis From Restrictive Cardiomyopathy: A Meta-analysis.
Review in CJC open, 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.
- Article
- Assessment of Congestion in Heart Failure Using VExUS: Current Evidence, Limitations and Clinical Perspectives.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Echocardiographic Updates in the Assessment of Cardiomyopathy.Current cardiology reports · 2025Review
- The Important Role of Preoperative D-Dimer in Constrictive Pericarditis.Therapeutics and clinical risk management · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of the Mayo Clinic echocardiographic criteria for differentiating between constrictive pericarditis and restrictive cardiomyopathy. Methods: We searched electronic databases for the date range from their inception to July 1, 2022. The index tests were the Mayo Clinic echocardiographic criteria. We performed a bivariate random-effects model to estimate the pooled sensitivity and specificity, each with 95% confidence interval (CI). The area under the curve of the summary receiver operator characteristic curves, with 95% CI, was also calculated. Results: We included 17 case-control studies involving 889 patients. The pooled sensitivity and specificity (95% CI), respectively, were as follows: ventricular septal shift, 82% (60%-94%) and 78% (65%-87%); respiratory variation in mitral inflow ≥ 14.6%, 71% (51%-85%) and 82% (66%-91%); septal e' velocity ≥ 8 cm/s, 83% (80%-87%) and 90% (83%-95%); septal e' velocity/lateral e' velocity ≥ 0.88, 74% (64%-82%) and 81% (70%-88%); and hepatic vein ratio in expiration ≥ 0.79, 73% (65%-81%) and 71% (19%-96%). The area under the curve of the summary receiver operator characteristic curves varied from 0.75 to 0.85, with overlapping CIs across index tests. Conclusions: Our meta-analysis suggests that all echocardiographic parameters from the Mayo Clinic criteria have good diagnostic accuracy for differentiating between constrictive pericarditis and restrictive cardiomyopathy.
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.