ReviewInternational journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature2024
Value of cardiac magnetic resonance feature-tracking in Arrhythmogenic Cardiomyopathy (ACM): A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in International journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of non-dilated left ventricular cardiomyopathy patients with reduced and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction using cardiac magnetic resonance feature tracking technology.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2026Article
- Advancing cardiac monitoring in adult Duchenne muscular dystrophy: longitudinal insights and real-world challenges.International journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We aimed to assess the diagnostic performance of Cardiac Magnetic Resonance (CMR) strain parameters in ACM patients to evaluate their diagnostic role. We systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, and Web of Science. Of the 146 records, 16 were included. All Right Ventricle (RV) global strains were significantly reduced in ACM patients compared to controls (Standardized Mean Difference (SMD)[95 % Confidence Interval (CI)]: Longitudinal 1.31[0.79,1.83]; Circumferential 0.88[0.34,1.42]; Radial -1.14[-1.78,-0.51]). Similarly, all Left Ventricle (LV) global strains were significantly impaired in ACM compared to healthy controls (SDM [95 %CI]: Longitudinal 0.88[0.48,12.28], Circumferential 0.97[0.72,1.22], Radial -1.24[-1.49,-1.00]). Regarding regional RV strains, longitudinal and circumferential strains were significantly reduced in basal and mid-wall regions, while they were comparable to controls in the apical regions. The RV radial strain was reduced only within the basal region in the ACM group compared to controls. ACM patients exhibited significant impairment of regional LV strains in all regions-basal, mid-wall, and apical-compared to control subjects. Ultimately, despite the limitations of CMR-FT in terms of reproducibility, it is superior to qualitative assessment in detecting wall motion abnormalities. Thus, integrating CMR-FT with ACM diagnostic criteria seems to enhance its diagnostic yield.
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.