SynthesisThe international journal of cardiovascular imaging2025
Evaluation of tricuspid regurgitation by cardiac magnetic resonance and comparison with echocardiography: a systematic review.
Synthesis 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
- Quantification of Tricuspid Valve Regurgitation With 2D and 4D-Flow MRI: Comparison of Different Methods in Adult Patients With Ebstein's Anomaly.Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In this systematic review, we aimed to analyze the methods and results of studies dedicated for quantifying tricuspid regurgitation (TR) with cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR), the concordance between echocardiography and CMR, the prognostic value and the reproducibility of CMR in patients with TR. Published studies on MEDLINE were included using search terms on TR and CMR until June 2024. Out of the 1108 screened articles, 19 studies fulfilled our inclusion criteria. The 2 most commonly used methods were the indirect method which uses 2D-phase contrast (2D-indirect) and the challenging measurement of right ventricular stroke volume. It was used in larger studies with higher proportion of patients with severe TR. The direct method, which uses 4D-phase contrast (4D-direct), has been mainly used in methodological studies with a low proportion of patients with severe TR. 4 studies comparing CMR with echocardiography showed poor severity agreement. In 6 studies assessing the prognostic value of CMR, TR evaluation with tricuspid regurgitant volume (RVol) or regurgitation fraction (RF) yielded a strong prognostic value although right ventricular ejection fraction was the most consistent prognostic predictor. There was very good inter-/intra-observer variability in 8 studies. No study with inter-examination evaluation was found. An independent reference method to compare different CMR measurement methods is still lacking. In conclusion, CMR might play a major role in the evaluation of patients with TR by using 2D-indirect method indices such as RVol and RF for TR quantification and prognosis, but definitive outcome studies using 4D-direct method as a basis for treatment of TR are lacking but needed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40679725What 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.