ArticleThe international journal of cardiovascular imaging2024
Clinical comparison of a handheld cardiac ultrasound device for the assessment of left ventricular function.
Article in The international journal of cardiovascular imaging, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeRecently developed handheld ultrasound devices (HHUD) represent a promising method to evaluate the cardiovascular abnormalities at the point of care. However, this technology has not been rigorously evaluated. The aim of this study was to explore the correlation and the agreement between the LVEF (Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction) visually assessed by a moderately experienced sonographer using an HHUD compared to the routine LVEF assessment performed at the Echocardiography Laboratory.
methodsThis was a prospective single center study which enrolled 120 adult inpatients and outpatients referred for a comprehensive Echocardiography (EC).
resultsThe mean age of the patients was 69.9 ± 12.5 years. There were 47 females (39.2%). The R-squared was r 0.94 (p < 0.0001) and the ICC was 0.93 (IC 95% 0.91-0.95, p ≤ 0.0001). The Bland-Altman plot showed limits of agreement (LOA): Upper LOA 10.61 and Lower LOA - 8.95. The overall agreement on the LVEF assessment when it was stratified as "normal" or "reduced" was 89.1%, with a kappa of 0.77 (p < 0.0001). When the LVEF was classified as "normal", "mildly reduced", "moderately reduced", or "severely reduced," the kappa was 0.77 (p < 0.0001). The kappa between the HHUD EC and the comprehensive EC for the detection of RWMAs in the territories supplied by the LAD, LCX and RCA was 0.85, 0.73 and 0.85, respectively.
conclusionWith current HHUD, an averagely experienced operator can accurately bedside visual estimate the LVEF. This may facilitate the incorporation of this technology in daily clinical practice improving the management of patients.
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.