ArticleEchocardiography (Mount Kisco, N.Y.)2025
Comparative Reproducibility of Myocardial Work and Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction in Patients After an Acute Coronary Syndrome.
Article in Echocardiography (Mount Kisco, N.Y.), 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.
- Peak strain dispersion as a nonlinear mediator in HFpEF: Unraveling subtype-specific pathways via SHAP-augmented ensemble modeling.PLoS computational biology · 2026Article
- Left ventricular hypertrophy and myocardial work in amateur marathon runners.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo assess reproducibility (interobserver variability and agreement) of global work efficiency (GWE) and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), assessed by 2D-echocardiography (2-DE) and 3D-echocardiography (3-DE), in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS), through measurements performed by operators with different levels of experience.
methodsEchocardiographers with three levels of experience were involved in offline processing: advanced, who performed image acquisition-Reader 1 (5 years of training in 2-DE, 3 years in 3-DE); intermediate-Reader 2 (3 years of training in 2-DE, 1 year in 3-DE); and beginner-Reader 3 (1 year of training in 2-DE, 3 months in 3-DE). Measurements of GWE and LVEF were performed independently. Intraobserver and interobserver variability and agreement between readers were compared using Bland-Altman plots, as bias and limits of agreement (LOA), and Pearson correlations.
results90 patients (54 ± 9 years, 75 males) with ACS were analyzed. Comparing measurements of GWE, the following bias and LOA were obtained: R1 versus R2: bias -0.6, LOA -3-2 (r = 0.98, p < 0.001); R2 versus R3: bias -0.3, LOA -3-5 (r = 0.96, p < 0.001); R1 versus R3: bias -1, LOA -5-4 (r = 0.94, p < 0.001). Interobserver variability and agreement of GWE were comparable with LVEF by 3-DE: R1 versus R2: bias 0.6, -2, and -1.4; LOA -3-4, -7-4, and -6-4, respectively (r = 0.96, 0.91, and 0.94, respectively, all p < 0.001); however, for LVEF by 2-DE, interobserver variability was higher, while agreement was lower.
conclusionReproducibility of GWE in patients after an ACS is independent of the experience of the operator and similar to the reproducibility of LVEF by 3-DE.
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.