ArticleBMC medical imaging2025
Comparison of right atrial volume measurements using single-plane area-length and stack-of-short-axis methods: A 3.0 T cardiac magnetic resonance study.
Article in BMC medical imaging, 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.
- Late cardiac effects of anthracycline-based therapy in childhood cancer survivors: a CMR study of cardiac strain and function.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 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
purposeThe stack-of-short-axis volumes (SAX) summation and single-plane area-length (AL) methods are established approaches for right atrial (RA) volume quantification in cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging. However, data regarding the reliability and agreement between these methods are limited. Furthermore, there is no validation on whether to include the right atrial appendage (RAA) in the analysis. This study aims to evaluate the reliability of the single-plane AL and SAX methods for measuring RA volumes and to assess the agreement between these two approaches.
methodsCMR (3.0T, Siemens) data from 40 healthy volunteers were analyzed to quantify RA volumes, both including and excluding RAA volume, using the SAX and single-plane (4-chamber view) AL methods.
resultsThe mean age of 40 participants was 33.6 ± 6.1 years (50% male). RA volumes measured by the SAX method were significantly larger than those obtained by the single-plane AL method (maximum RA volume including RAA: 84.9 ± 22.9 vs. 63.7 ± 16.0 ml, p-value < 0.001; minimum RA volume including RAA: 45.3 ± 15.9 vs. 34.7 ± 12.2 ml, p-value < 0.001). RA ejection fraction (RAEF) was the only parameter that showed no statistical difference between the two methods. Bland-Altman plots demonstrated poor agreement between the techniques, with substantial biases and wide limits of agreement. Both methods exhibited excellent reproducibility when the RAA volume was included (ICC = 0.89-0.96). However, reproducibility was reduced when the RAA volume was excluded, particularly in terms of inter-observer agreement (ICC = 0.73-0.96).
conclusionsThe single-plane AL method underestimates RA volumes compared to the SAX method, and the poor agreement between the two techniques suggests they should not be used interchangeably. RA volume measurements should be interpreted using method-specific reference values. Additionally, including the RAA in RA volume quantification-regardless of the method-may improve measurement reproducibility.
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.