SynthesisOpen heart2026
Relative apical sparing of left ventricular longitudinal strain for the diagnosis of cardiac amyloidosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Open heart, 2026. 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCardiac amyloidosis (CA) is underdiagnosed due to non-specific clinical and echocardiographic features. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of the left ventricular relative apical sparing (RELAPS) pattern on speckle-tracking echocardiography.
methodsA literature search of PubMed, Scopus and Cochrane was conducted through August 2025. RELAPS was defined as the average apical longitudinal strain divided by the sum of average basal and average middle left ventricular longitudinal strains. Diagnostic accuracy was assessed using a bivariate random-effects model. Subgroup analyses by CA subtype and echocardiogram software, and meta-regression for clinical variables, were performed. Optimal cut-offs were determined by maximising the Youden index. Analyses were conducted in R V.4.4.1.
resultsForty-one studies (3473 CA; 4525 comparators) were included. Pooled analysis yielded an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC-ROC) of 0.818, with sensitivity 65.9% (95% CIs 59.2% to 72.0%) and specificity 83.1% (CI 78.5% to 86.8%). The diagnostic oods ratio (DOR) was 9.54 (CI 7.41 to 12.10). In subtype analyses, immunoglobulin light chains (AL-CA) showed AUC-ROC 0.876, sensitivity 59.8% (CI 41.1% to 76.0%) and specificity 92.7% (CI 83.6% to 96.9%); transthyretin (ATTR-CA) showed AUC-ROC 0.822, sensitivity 63.8% (CI 51.2% to 74.8%) and specificity 84.4% (CI 76.7% to 89.9%), with no significant differences between subtypes (sensitivity p=0.760; specificity p=0.172). Three echocardiography software systems were evaluated. GE EchoPAC (26 studies) achieved an AUC-ROC of 0.822 (sensitivity 70.4% (CI 64.1% to 76.0%), specificity 81.2% (CI 75.7% to 85.7%)). Philips QLAB (four studies) performed comparably (AUC-ROC 0.904; sensitivity 67.6% (CI 31.2% to 90.6%), specificity 92.7% (CI 73.6% to 98.3%)). In contrast, TomTec (four studies) had an AUC-ROC of 0.806, but its sensitivity (31.1% (CI 9.4% to 66.3%)) was significantly lower than GE EchoPAC's (p<0.001), despite a similar specificity (93.6% (CI 78.8% to 98.3%)).
conclusionRELAPS provides moderate diagnostic accuracy for identifying CA, with good specificity and modest sensitivity. Performance varies by analysis software and threshold, underscoring the need for standardised measurement and prespecified cut-offs.
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.