ArticleLa Radiologia medica2025
A comparative analysis of myocardial strain and strain rate in cardiac computed tomography and magnetic resonance feature tracking.
Article in La Radiologia medica, 2025. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study investigated the feasibility of feature tracking cardiac computed tomography (CCT)-derived LV global and regional strain and its agreement with feature tracking cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR)-derived measurements.
methodsCMR images and CCT images were acquired from 15 adult patients (50% women, mean age: 65 ± 9 years). Cardiac LV global and segmental circumferential and longitudinal strain and strain rate were assessed on CCT and CMR using feature tracking (FT) technology. Agreement between the measurements from two different modalities was evaluated using Bland-Altman analysis and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).
resultsStrain/strain rate analysis could be accomplished in every subject with both techniques. Agreement between CMR-FT and CCT-FT was strong for global circumferential strain (ICC > 0.75), while other global strain features displayed moderate inter-technique correlation (ICC > 0.50). On Bland-Altman analysis, strain analysis derived from CCT-FT showed a lower measurement of LV global longitudinal strain and strain rate in comparison with CMR-FT (mean difference: 5.32% and 0.71 s
conclusionsCCT-FT is a feasible technique, with good agreement with analogous CMR-FT-derived parameters, especially for global measurements, and could be an acceptable alternative for strain assessment.
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.