ArticleFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2024
The influence of post-processing software on quantitative results in 4D flow cardiovascular magnetic resonance examinations.
Article in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 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.
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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Several commercially available software packages exist for the analysis of three-dimensional cine phase-contrast cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) with three-directional velocity encoding (four-dimensional (4D) flow CMR). Only sparse data are available on the impact of these different software solutions on quantitative results. We compared two different commercially available and widely used software packages and their impact on the forward flow volume (FFV), peak velocity (PV), and maximum wall shear stress (WSS) per plane. Materials and methods: 4D flow CMR datasets acquired by 3 Tesla magnetic resonance imaging of 10 healthy volunteers, 13 aortic stenosis patients, and 7 aortic valve replacement patients were retrospectively analyzed for FFV, PV, and WSS using two software packages in six analysis planes along the thoracic aorta. Absolute (AD) and relative differences (RD), intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC), Bland-Altman analysis, and Spearman's correlation analysis were calculated. Results: For the FFV and PV in healthy volunteers, there was good to excellent agreement between both software packages [FFV: ICC = 0.93-0.97, AD: 0.1 ± 5.4 ml (-2.3 ± 2.4 ml), RD: -0.3 ± 8% (-5.7 ± 6.0%); PV: ICC = 0.81-0.99, AD: -0.02 ± 0.02 ml (-0.1 ± 0.1 ml), RD: -1.6 ± 2.1% (-9.3 ± 6.1%)]. In patients, the FFV showed good to excellent agreement [ICC: 0.75-0.91, AD: -1.8 ± 6.5 ml (-8.3 ± 9.9 ml), RD: -2.2 ± 9.2% (-13.8 ± 17.4%)]. In the ascending aorta, PV showed only poor to moderate agreement in patients (plane 2 ICC: 0.33, plane 3 ICC: 0.72), whereas the rest of the thoracic aorta revealed good to excellent agreement [ICC: 0.95-0.98, AD: -0.03 ± 0.07 (-0.1 ± 0.1 m/s), RD: -3.5 ± 7.9% (-7.8 ± 9.9%)]. WSS analysis showed no to poor agreement between both software packages. Global correlation analyses revealed good to very good correlation between FFV and PV and only poor correlation for WSS. Conclusions: There was good to very good agreement for the FFV and PV except for the ascending aorta in patients when comparing PV and no agreement for WSS. Standardization is therefore necessary.
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.