ArticleFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2025
How can the left atrial strain be correctly determined by cardiovascular magnetic resonance feature tracking?
Article in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2025. 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.
- Manual long axis strain compared to automated feature-tracking deformation imaging for identification of masked left heart involvement in pulmonary hypertension.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Left atrial (LA) strain marks a highly valuable clinical parameter for discrimination of various cardiovascular diseases as consolidated by a plethora of literature. However LA strain assessment by cardiovascular magnetic resonance feature tracking (CMR-FT) is conventionally based on 2-chamber (2Ch) and 4-chamber (4Ch) cine acquisitions, which are aligned for left ventricular (LV) imaging. These slice positions are hypothesized inadequate for identifying the longest LA dimensions required for accurate LA strain quantification. Materials and methods: LA strain was assessed in 21 patients (48.3 ± 15.2 years, 10 females) with various cardiovascular diseases by CMR-FT. Two different planning procedures were compared: (1) the standard planning procedure using the cine steady-state free-precession (SSFP) 2Ch and 4Ch views aligned to the LV and (2) the optimized planning procedure based on cine SSFP 2Ch and 4Ch views, however, aligned to the LA. Strain analysis was performed using CVI42® software. Paired Student's Results: Indexed maximum, minimum LA volumes and LA volumes before atrial contraction were significantly elevated for optimized planning compared to standard planning ( Conclusion: Optimized LA planning procedure for assessment of the longest LA dimensions results in significant alterations in CMR quantifications with increased chamber volumetrics and decreased strain and strain rates compared to standard procedure.
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.