ArticleScientific reports2025
Feasibility, accuracy and prognostic value of fully automated speckle tracking analysis-derived left ventricular ejection fraction and global longitudinal strain.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) has been widely used for LV systolic assessment. However, it has drawbacks including large observer variability and unsatisfactory detectability of subclinical dysfunction. LV global longitudinal strain (LVGLS) by speckle-tracking on two-dimensional echocardiography (2DE) has been reported to be superior to LVEF. However, it may be influenced by the different methodology (manual versus semi-automated analyses) and biased study cohorts. A fully automated analysis can alleviate drawbacks of the LVEF and allow fair comparison between LVEF and LVGLS. We sought to evaluate the feasibility, accuracy of LVEF, and LVGLS measurements by the novel fully automated 2DE software against manual analysis and cardiac MRI feature-tracking (CMR-FT). Additionally, we tested prognostic utility of LVEF and LVGLS. In consecutive 436 patients undergoing CMR and 2DE, the fully automated analysis had excellent feasibility (97%). The correlation in LVEF and LVGLS between the fully automated analysis and the other two techniques was high (r = 0.82-0.95). During a median 26-month follow-up, 65 patients experienced cardiac events. In 422 patients successfully analyzed by the fully automated software (63 patients with cardiac events), both LVEF and LVGLS by the fully automated analysis were associated with cardiac events and their prognostic utility was not inferior to manual analyses. Nested Cox proportional hazard models and net reclassification analyses revealed fully automated analysis-derived LVEF and LVGLS did not have an incremental prognostic value over each other. A novel, fully automated analytical software demonstrated excellent applicability to clinical practice by providing reliable LVEF and LVGLS with comparable prognostic utility.
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.