Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 225

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Comparison of Echocardiographic and Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging Measurements of Functional Single Ventricular Volumes, Mass, and Ejection Fraction (from the Pediatric Heart Network Fontan Cross-Sectional Study)††A list of participating institutions and investigators appears in the Appendix.

Open access
Margossian, Renee, Schwartz, Marcy L., Prakash, Ashwin, Wruck, Lisa, Colan, Steven D., Atz, Andrew M., Bradley, Timothy J., Fogel, Mark A., Hurwitz, Lynne M., Marcus, Edward, Powell, Andrew J., Printz, Beth F., Puchalski, Michael D., Rychik, Jack, Shirali, Girish, Williams, Richard, Yoo, Shi-Joon, Geva, Tal·2009·The American Journal of Cardiology

Abstract

Assessment of the size and function of the functional single ventricle (FSV) is a key element in the management of patients following the Fontan procedure. Measurement variability of ventricular mass, volume and ejection fraction between observers by echocardiography and CMR and their reproducibility between readers in these patients has not been described. From the 546 patients enrolled in the Pediatric Heart Network Fontan Cross-Sectional Study (mean age 11.9±3.4 years), 100 echocardiograms and 50 CMR studies were assessed for measurement reproducibility; 124 subjects with paired studies were selected for comparison between modalities. Inter-observer agreement for qualitative grading of ventricular function by echocardiography was modest for left ventricular (LV) morphology (kappa= 0.42) and weak for right ventricular (RV) morphology (kappa= 0.12). For quantitative assessment, high intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC) were found for echocardiographic inter-observer (LV= 0.87–0.92; RV= 0.82–0.85) agreement of systolic and diastolic volumes, respectively. In contrast, ICCs for LV and RV mass were moderate (LV= 0.78; RV= 0.72). The corresponding ICCs by CMR were high (LV= 0.96; RV= 0.85). Volumes by echocardiography averaged 70% of CMR values. Interobserver reproducibility of EF was similar for both modalities. Although the absolute mean difference between modalities for ejection fraction was small (<2%), 95% limits of agreement were wide. In conclusion, agreement between observers of qualitative FSV function by echocardiography is modest. Measurements of FSV volume by 2D echocardiography underestimate CMR measurements but their reproducibility is high. Echocardiographic and CMR measurements of FSV EF demonstrate similar interobserver reproducibility whereas measurements of FSV mass and LV diastolic volume are more reproducible by CMR.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.amjcard.2009.03.058

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 225

Metadata

Authors
Margossian, R., Schwartz, M. L., Prakash, A., Wruck, L., Colan, S. D., Atz, A. M., Bradley, T. J., Fogel, M. A., Hurwitz, L. M., Marcus, E., Powell, A. J., Printz, B. F., Puchalski, M. D., Rychik, J., Shirali, G., Williams, R., Yoo, S.-J., & Geva, T.
Venue
The American Journal of Cardiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2009-08
Volume
104
Issue
3
Pages
419-428
ISSN
0002-9149 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2085837902
Cited by
225
References
1
FWCI
5.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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: Comparison of Echocardiographic and Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging Measurements of Functional Single Ventricular Volumes, Mass, and Ejection Fraction (from the Pediatric Heart Network Fontan Cross-Sectional Study)††A list of participating institutions and investigators appears in the Appendix. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.amjcard.2009.03.058
The paper
Margossian, R., Schwartz, M. L., Prakash, A., Wruck, L., Colan, S. D., Atz, A. M., Bradley, T. J., Fogel, M. A., Hurwitz, L. M., Marcus, E., Powell, A. J., Printz, B. F., Puchalski, M. D., Rychik, J., Shirali, G., Williams, R., Yoo, S.-J., & Geva, T. (2009). Comparison of Echocardiographic and Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging Measurements of Functional Single Ventricular Volumes, Mass, and Ejection Fraction (from the Pediatric Heart Network Fontan Cross-Sectional Study)††A list of participating institutions and investigators appears in the Appendix. The American Journal of Cardiology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjcard.2009.03.058

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.