ArticleCJC open2026
Impact of a Fully Integrated "1-Click" Automated Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction Tool on Echocardiography Reporting.
Article in CJC open, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The Simpson's Biplane Method (SBM) is the recommended standard for clinical reporting of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). However, visual estimation of LVEF is common practice. Automated tools for SBM offer rapid, reproducible volumetric LVEF calculations, but their real-world impact on reporting behaviour is unclear. We sought to characterize the impact of a "1-click" automatic LVEF tool on the prevalence of volumetric LVEF reporting. Methods: We examined a retrospective cohort of 50,718 adult transthoracic echocardiograms performed between February 2023 and February 2025. In February 2024, a "1-click" automated SBM-based LVEF tool was deployed as an update to the reporting software. Prevalence of volumetric vs visual LVEF reporting was assessed for 3 time points: pre-deployment (period A), early post-deployment (period B), and late post-deployment (period C). Interrupted time series and multivariable logistic regression were used to evaluate temporal trends, adjusting for demographics, image quality, patient class, LVEF < 50%, and interpreting physician. Results: Overall, 33.7% (n = 17,097) of reports included a volumetric LVEF, whereas 66.3% (n = 33,621) were visual estimates. Compared with period A, volumetric reporting did not significantly increase in period B (odds ratio 1.10, 95% confidence interval 0.99-1.22; Conclusions: The deployment of an SBM-based automated tool was associated with a modest increase in volumetric LVEF reporting, highlighting the fact that technology availability alone does not ensure its adoption.
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.