ArticleEcho research and practice2025
Inter-technique agreement of left atrial and ventricular deformation analysis: a comparison between transthoracic echocardiography and cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging.
Article in Echo research and practice, 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.
- Evaluation of Cardiac Function After Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for Lung Tumors: Results of the Prospective Explorative Heart-Lung Study.Advances in radiation oncology · 2026Article
- Development of a Framework for Echocardiographic Image Quality Assessment and Its Application in CRT-D/ICD Patients.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
Abstract
backgroundMyocardial strain measurements are increasingly used in research and clinical practice. However, there are limited data on inter-modality agreement and reproducibility. We aimed to investigate the inter-technique agreement of transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) and cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging derived left atrial (LA) and left ventricular (LV) deformation parameters.
methodsSubjects with or without cardiovascular disease were prospectively recruited and had TTE and CMR on the same day. Ten subjects with type 2 diabetes (T2D) had both scans repeated within two weeks for test-retest reproducibility assessment. Myocardial deformation analyses were undertaken including LA strain (LAS) corresponding to LA reservoir, conduit and booster pump phases, LV global longitudinal strain (GLS) and peak early/late diastolic strain rate (PE/PLDSR) and LV mid-circumferential strain (Mid-CS) and strain rates.
results222 participants (T2D (n = 87); severe aortic stenosis (n = 78) and healthy volunteers (n = 57)) were included. There were no significant differences between TTE and CMR measured LAS parameters, with moderate agreement between imaging modalities (ICC = 0.55-0.69). LV parameters were significantly higher on CMR except for Mid-CS which was higher on TTE (-19.3 ± 3.19 vs. -23.0 ± 4.37; p < 0.001). Inter-technique agreement was poor for all LV deformation parameters, except PLDSR with modest agreement (ICC = 0.52-0.66). CMR test-retest reproducibility was good to excellent for LAS and LV strain rate parameters (ICC = 0.73-0.90). TTE test-retest reproducibility was good for conduit LAS and LV_PEDSR (ICC = 0.80).
conclusionThere is modest agreement between TTE and CMR for LAS and poor agreement for LV strain assessment, suggesting that these techniques cannot be used inter-changeably. In a small subset of participants CMR test-retest reproducibility was overall better than TTE.
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.