The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Normal Ranges of Left Ventricular Strain: A Meta-Analysis
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND The definition of normal values of left ventricular global longitudinal strain (GLS), global circumferential strain, and global radial strain is of critical importance to the clinical application of this modality. The investigators performed a meta-analysis of normal ranges and sought to identify factors that contribute to reported variations. METHODS MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library database were searched through August 2011 using the key terms "strain," "speckle tracking," "left ventricle," and "echocardiography" and related phrases. Studies were included if the articles reported left ventricular strain using two-dimensional speckle-tracking echocardiography in healthy normal subjects, either in the control group or as a primary objective of the study. Data were combined using a random-effects model, and effects of demographic, hemodynamic, and equipment variables were sought in a meta-regression. RESULTS The search identified 2,597 subjects from 24 studies. Reported normal values of GLS varied from -15.9% to -22.1% (mean, -19.7%; 95% CI, -20.4% to -18.9%). Normal global circumferential strain varied from -20.9% to -27.8% (mean, -23.3%; 95% CI, -24.6% to -22.1%). Global radial strain ranged from 35.1% to 59.0% (mean, 47.3%; 95% CI, 43.6% to 51.0%). There was significant between-study heterogeneity and inconsistency. The source of variation was sought between studies using meta-regression. Blood pressure, but not age, gender, frame rate, or equipment, was associated with variation in normal GLS values. CONCLUSIONS The narrowest confidence intervals from this meta-analysis were for GLS and global circumferential strain, but individual studies have shown a broad range of strain in apparently normal subjects. Variations between different normal ranges seem to be associated with differences in systolic blood pressure, emphasizing that this should be considered in the interpretation of strain.
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
Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses
Higgins, J. P. T., Thompson, S. G., Deeks, J. J., & Altman, D. G. (2003) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557 · Cited by 63,139
Meta-analysis in clinical trials
DerSimonian, R., & Laird, N. (1986) · Controlled Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2 · Cited by 39,552
Moher, D., Cook, D. J., Eastwood, S., Olkin, I., Rennie, D., & Stroup, D. F. (1999) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(99)04149-5 · Cited by 4,826
Cited by
Lang, R. M., Badano, L. P., Mor-Avi, V., Afilalo, J., Armstrong, A., Ernande, L., Flachskampf, F. A., Foster, E., Goldstein, S. A., Kuznetsova, T., et al. (2015) · Journal of the American Society of Echocardiography · doi:10.1016/j.echo.2014.10.003 · Cited by 12,362
Hegde, S. M., Claggett, B. L., Wang, X., Jering, K., Prasad, N., Roshanali, F., Masri, A., Nassif, M. E., Barriales-Villa, R., Abraham, T. P., et al. (2024) · Journal of the American College of Cardiology · doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2024.08.002 · Cited by 47
Metadata
- Authors
- Yingchoncharoen, T., Agarwal, S., Popović, Z. B., & Marwick, T. H.
- Venue
- Journal of the American Society of Echocardiography
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2013-02
- Volume
- 26
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 185-191
- ISSN
- 0894-7317 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2157264444
- Cited by
- 885
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 6.77
- 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: Normal Ranges of Left Ventricular Strain: A Meta-Analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.echo.2012.10.008
- The paper
- Yingchoncharoen, T., Agarwal, S., Popović, Z. B., & Marwick, T. H. (2013). Normal Ranges of Left Ventricular Strain: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of the American Society of Echocardiography. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.echo.2012.10.008
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.