ArticleBMC medical imaging2024
Evaluating the consistency in different methods for measuring left atrium diameters.
Article in BMC medical imaging, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Correction: Evaluating the consistency in different methods for measuring left atrium diameters.BMC medical imaging · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe morphological information of the pulmonary vein (PV) and left atrium (LA) is of immense clinical importance for effective atrial fibrillation ablation. The aim of this study is to examine the consistency in different LA diameter measurement techniques.
methodsRetrospective imaging data from 87 patients diagnosed with PV computed tomography angiography were included. The patients consisted of 50 males and 37 females, with an average age of (60.74 ± 8.70) years. Two physicians independently measured the anteroposterior diameter, long diameter, and transverse diameter of the LA using six different methods. Additionally, we recorded the post-processing time of the images. Physician 1 conducted measurements twice with a one-month interval between the measurements to assess intra-rater reliability. Using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), the consistency of each LA diameter measurement by the two physicians was evaluated. We compared the differences in the LA diameter and the time consumed for measurements using different methods. This was done by employing the rank sum test of a randomized block design (Friedman M test) and the q test for pairwise comparisons among multiple relevant samples.
results(1) The consistency of the measured LA diameter by the two physicians was strong or very strong. (2) There were statistical differences in the anteroposterior diameter, long diameter, and transverse diameter of LA assessed using different methods (χ
conclusionThe results of left atrium (LA) diameter measurements conducted by different physicians were found to be reliable. However, the LA diameters obtained through various techniques exhibited variations. It was observed that measuring LA long diameters using only the VR (volume rendering) picture was the most clinically applicable method.
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.