ArticleJournal of echocardiography2025
The preferable position for quantifying left ventricular diameter by transthoracic echocardiography.
Article in Journal of echocardiography, 2025. 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.
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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn quantifying left ventricular (LV) diameter, which position for echocardiographic measurements, mitral valve tip level (MV-tip) or LV mid level (LV-mid), more accurately represents the LV volume is unclear. Furthermore, which factor affects the measurement error also has not been elucidated.
methodsWe enrolled 150 patients without myocardial infarction and local asynergy who underwent echocardiography and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMRI). Echocardiographic LV diastolic diameter (LVDD) and LV systolic diameter (LVDS) were measured at both MV-tip and LV-mid, and the LV end-diastolic volume (LVEDV) and end-systolic volume (LVESV) were quantified using CMRI. We quantified the degree of aortic wedging as the angle between the anterior wall of the aorta and the ventricular septal surface (ASA).
resultsThe average LVDD was smaller and average LVDS larger when measured at the MV-tip than at the LV-mid. In regression analyses, the correlation coefficient between LVDD and LVEDV was larger at LV-mid (R = 0.89) than at MV-tip (R = 0.82), and the correlation coefficient between LVDS and LVESV also larger at LV-mid (R = 0.93) than MV-tip (R = 0.87). ASA, Valsalva diameter, left atrial diameter, patient height, and LV mass significantly affected the echocardiographic measurement error, but no factor affected the measurement error when quantifying LVDD at the LV-mid level.
conclusionsThe echocardiographic LV diameter measured at LV-mid has a stronger correlation with LV chamber size derived from CMRI than measurements at MV-tip. The LVDD measured at the LV-mid level is not affected by other factors.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39222201What 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.