ArticleTurkish archives of pediatrics2025
Cross-Sectional Analysis of Echocardiography Reports in Light of Guideline Recommendations.
Article in Turkish archives of pediatrics, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The aim of this study is to identify discrepancies in pediatric echocardiography reports across centers and emphasize the significance of establishing a standardized reporting approach. Materials and Methods: In this study, pediatric echocardiography reports from various institutions (university hospitals [UHs], training and research hospitals [TRHs], and private healthcare facilities) (33 reports from 29 centers) were evaluated for adherence to key criteria outlined in consensus guidelines by the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging of the European Society of Cardiology and the Association for European Paediatric and Congenital Cardiology. Each echocardiography report was systematically categorized into distinct sections, including patient information, medical records, echocardiographic findings, and conclusions. Results: Systemic and pulmonary venous return was reported in 58.3% of cases from UHs, 77.7% from TRHs, and 66.7% from private healthcare institutions (PHIs). Pulmonary artery and aortic arch were documented in 83.3% of reports from PHIs, 88.8% from TRHs, and 25% from UHs. Coronary artery dimensions and course were reported in 58.3% of reports from UHs, 77.7% from TRHs, and 16.7% from PHIs. Physician interpretations and diagnoses were present in all reports. However, information regarding environmental factors, such as whether the patient was awake or agitated during the examination, was reported in 66.6% of cases from TRHs but was entirely absent in reports from other institutions. Conclusion: This study demonstrates important variability in pediatric echocardiography reports. Adopting international guidelines may facilitate standardized reporting, ensure consideration of underassessed parameters, and promote a unified terminology across institutions.
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.