ArticleInternational journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery2026
A multicenter study on the comparability of myocardial strain values acquired with different CMR scanners and analyzed with different post-processing software: insights into the "Traveling Volunteers" study.
Article in International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Regional strain patterns in patients with mitral valve prolapse.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2026Article
- Design and rationale of the WE-CARE-HF-CMR trial: Cardiorenal care on wheels for asymptomatic heart failure patients (NCT07185100).Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance · 2026Article
- Equivalence of feature-tracking-derived myocardial strain across spatial resolution and compressed sensing acceleration.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeStrain quantifies myocardial deformation. Despite its high diagnostic value, strain analyses using cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) feature tracking (FT) have not been fully implemented into clinical routine due to lack of information on reproducibility. The purpose of this study was to assess the comparability of cardiovascular magnetic resonance CMR FT strain and ejection fraction (EF) measurements, obtained from different MR scanners and analyzed using different software platforms.
methodsCMR examinations were performed in 15 healthy volunteers using three different scanners (German Heart Center of the Charité, Charité Campus Berlin Buch, and Theresien-Hospital Mannheim). FT was performed using Medis Suite and Circle CVI. Inter-software/scanner agreement was determined using Bland-Altman plots, Wilcoxon test, and paired Student's t test. Intra-/inter-observer reproducibility was evaluated using intraclass correlation coefficients.
resultsLeft ventricular (LV) global longitudinal (GLS) and circumferential (GCS) strain did not differ between the three centers (small bias of - 1.27 to 1.32% for GLS and 0.91 to 0.69% for GCS). Inter-scanner agreement was lower regarding LV global radial strain (GRS) (bias of - 2.29 to 4.53%) and good for LV EF (bias of - 0.59 to 0.94%). Inter-software agreement was low for GLS (bias of - 5.72 to - 4.59%), GCS (- 1.13 to - 1.55%), and GRS (18.34 to 19.83%), with higher GLS/GCS and lower GRS values in CVI than Medis. LV EF showed better inter-software agreement (biases of - 0.07 to 0.06%). Intra- and inter-observer reproducibility was good for strain measurements across all scanners (bias of - 0.01 to 2.05 and 0.22 to 1.92, respectively) and software packages (ICC 0.70 to 0.90 and 0.51 to 0.89, respectively).
conclusionInter-scanner reproducibility for CMR FT measurements was high for GLS and GCS, suggesting potential use in routine CMR examinations. However, strain values between the two software vendors (CVI and Medis) were significantly different, indicating the need for standardization and implementation of software-specific cutoff values.
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.