ArticleMaedica2026
Cardiac MRI Versus Echocardiography for Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction Assessment: a Prospective Comparative Study.
Article in Maedica, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and objective: Accurate assessment of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) is fundamental to the diagnosis, risk stratification and management of cardiovascular diseases. Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) is the established reference standard, while echocardiography and global longitudinal strain (GLS) provide widely accessible alternatives. This study compared LVEF by CMR, two-dimensional echocardiography (2D Echo), three-dimensional echocardiography (3D Echo) and GLS in patients with cardiovascular diseases at a Northeast Indian tertiary care centre. Materials and methods: A hospital-based prospective observational comparative study enrolled 50 patients with confirmed cardiovascular pathology at Assam Medical College and Hospital (AMCH), Dibrugarh. Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging was performed on a Siemens Magnetom Avanto 1.5 T scanner; echocardiography employed the Philips Affiniti CVx system. Agreement was assessed by Bland-Altman analysis and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Results: The mean CMR-LVEF was 48.5 ± 12.3%. 2D Echo showed a mean positive bias of +2.7 percentage points (95% limits of agreement [LoA]: -8.5% to +13.9%; ICC 0.89) and 3D Echo showed superior agreement (bias +1.3%; LoA -6.2% to +8.8%; ICC 0.93). Upward reclassification by 2D Echo occurred in 26% of patients. Global longitudinal strain strongly correlated with CMR-LVEF (r = -0.87, p < 0.001) and identified subclinical dysfunction in 35% of patients with preserved LVEF (≥50%). Conclusions: Cardiac magnetic resonance remains the reference standard for LVEF quantification. 3D Echo shows significantly superior agreement with CMR versus 2D Echo. Global longitudinal strain provides incremental diagnostic value beyond LVEF. A tiered multimodality imaging strategy with selective CMR confirmation at clinical decision boundaries is recommended.
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.