The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Magnetic resonance imaging compared to echocardiography to assess left ventricular mass in the hypertensive patient
Abstract
Echocardiography (ECHO) is useful to document changes in left ventricular mass (LVM) in groups of patients, but may be too variable for use in the individual patient. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) may be a more precise and reliable method to quantify the mass of the left ventricule. This study reports the accuracy, precision, and reliability of LVM estimates by MRI as compared to data obtained by ECHO in hypertensive patients. Accuracy referred to the comparison of LVM by MRI to anatomical LVM determined by autopsy. Precision was examined using 34 duplicate MRI images and by blindly reading 24 duplicate M-mode strips. Reliability was assessed by MRI in four subjects over 2 months, and by ECHO in 22 hypertensive patients over 2 weeks. Agreement between MRI and ECHO estimates of LVM was determined in the same 17 hypertensive patients using linear regression. MRI LVM estimates were within 17.5 g (95% CI) of the true LVM. The linear agreement between MRI and ECHO estimates of LVM could be described by the equation MRI = 0.61 x ECHO + 49.57 (r = 0.63, P < .01). The precision of LVM by MRI (11 g) was over twice that observed with ECHO (26 g). The reliability of MRI LVM estimates was more consistent (+/- 8 g) than that for ECHO (+/- 49 g). MRI appears to be a more precise and reliable method for measuring LVM, and would be more suitable than ECHO for the clinical evaluation of the individual patient.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENT
Martin Bland, J., & Altman, D. (1986) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(86)90837-8 · Cited by 47,965
Cited by
Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis: Objectives and Design
Bild, D. E. (2002) · American Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/aje/kwf113 · Cited by 3,942
Grothues, F., Smith, G. C., Moon, J. C. C., Bellenger, N. G., Collins, P., Klein, H. U., & Pennell, D. J. (2002) · The American Journal of Cardiology · doi:10.1016/s0002-9149(02)02381-0 · Cited by 1,267
Bellenger, N. (2000) · European Heart Journal · doi:10.1053/euhj.2000.2011 · Cited by 1,040
Clinical indications for cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR): Consensus Panel report?
PENNELL, D. (2004) · European Heart Journal · doi:10.1016/j.ehj.2004.06.040 · Cited by 747
Jenkins, C., Bricknell, K., Hanekom, L., & Marwick, T. H. (2004) · Journal of the American College of Cardiology · doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2004.05.050 · Cited by 598
Metadata
- Authors
- BOTTINI, P., CARR, A., PRISANT, L., FLICKINGER, F., ALLISON, J., & GOTTDIENER, J.
- Venue
- American Journal of Hypertension
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1995-03
- Volume
- 8
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 221-228
- ISSN
- 0895-7061 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2052115455
- Cited by
- 363
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 0.59
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Magnetic resonance imaging compared to echocardiography to assess left ventricular mass in the hypertensive patient. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/0895-7061(94)00178-e
- The paper
- BOTTINI, P., CARR, A., PRISANT, L., FLICKINGER, F., ALLISON, J., & GOTTDIENER, J. (1995). Magnetic resonance imaging compared to echocardiography to assess left ventricular mass in the hypertensive patient. American Journal of Hypertension. https://doi.org/10.1016/0895-7061(94)00178-e
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.