ArticleThe international journal of cardiovascular imaging2025
Reproducibility and reliability of flow quantification using CMR 2D-phase contrast and 4D-Flow in secondary mitral valve regurgitation.
Article in The international journal of cardiovascular imaging, 2025. 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.
- 4D Flow MRI-Based Quantification of Tricuspid Regurgitation: A Possible Approach to Improve Measurement Repeatability.Magnetic resonance in medicine · 2026Article
- Mitral Regurgitation in Contemporary Practice: From Diagnosis to Management.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Accurate quantification of mitral valve regurgitation (MVR) is crucial for patient management. While different MVR quantification methods based on cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) exist, their reproducibility and reliability remain uncertain. This study aims to evaluate the reproducibility of different CMR 2D-phase contrast (PC) and 4D-flow MVR quantification methods. The inter-reader and intra-reader reproducibility were assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). Seven methods were evaluated: 2D-PC standard (LVSV minus aortic flow), 2D-PC mitral-aortic (mitral inflow minus aortic flow), 2D-PC direct (quantifying mitral backflow), 4D-flow standard, 4D-flow mitral-aortic, 4D-flow direct, and volumetric method (LVSV minus RVSV) in 32 patients (74.8 ± 9.8 years, 28% females) with secondary MVR, analyzed independently by two experienced readers. A total of 26 patients were included in the analysis for 2D-PC and 15 for 4D-flow methods. Among all techniques, 2D-PC standard was the most reliable method with both good inter-reader (ICC = 0.85, p < 0.001) and intra-reader agreement (ICC = 0.87, p < 0.001). The 4D-flow standard (ICC = 0.97, p < 0.001) and the volumetric method (ICC = 0.81, p < 0.001) showed excellent and good intra-reader agreements, respectively, but only moderate inter-reader reproducibility (ICC = 0.52, p = 0.027 and ICC = 0.71, p < 0.001). In patients with secondary MVR, 2D-PC standard method demonstrated the highest reproducibility, while 4D-flow methods showed excellent intra-reader reliability but more variable inter-reader agreement. Standardized post-processing protocols and training would likely enhance the clinical application of these techniques. Future studies should investigate these methods in larger, diverse cohorts and correlate findings with clinical outcomes.
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.