ArticleAnnals of pediatric cardiology
Evaluation of left ventricular function and volume by two-dimensional echocardiography in a pediatric population: Correlation with cardiac magnetic resonance imaging.
Article in Annals of pediatric cardiology. 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.
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: Echocardiographic quantification of left ventricular (LV) volume and ejection fraction (EF) is widely used in the pediatric population. However, there is no consensus on the most accurate method of quantifying ventricular volumes and systolic function. Purpose: The purpose of this study is to compare two commonly used echocardiographic methods for the evaluation of LV volume and quantification of EF, the five-sixth area-length (5/6 AL) and the modified biplane Simpson (BS), to cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging in children. Methods: CMR studies were paired with echocardiograms and retrospectively analyzed in children 18 years of age and younger. Studies performed more than 3 months between modalities, patients with congenital heart disease, and patients who had changes in medication regimen between corresponding CMR and echocardiograms were excluded. LV volumes and EF were calculated using the 5/6 AL and BS methods and compared to volumes and EF measured on corresponding CMR studies. Subgroup analyses were conducted based on LV function, pathology, and weight. Results: We retrospectively analyzed 53 CMR and corresponding echocardiogram studies (23 studies for myocarditis and 30 studies for cardiomyopathy) in 46 patients. LVEF derived by both echocardiographic methods showed a good correlation to CMR (5/6 AL Conclusion: Left ventricular volumes and EF, as measured by echocardiography, correlate well with CMR measurements. Echocardiography underestimates LV systolic and diastolic volumes and overestimates LVEF. While echocardiography is a good surrogate for estimating LVEF, CMR should be considered in patients for whom accurate measurements are needed for critical clinical decision-making.
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.