Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 689

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

Reproducibility of Echocardiographic Techniques for Sequential Assessment of Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction and Volumes

Open access
Thavendiranathan, Paaladinesh, Grant, Andrew D., Negishi, Tomoko, Plana, Juan Carlos, Popović, Zoran B., Marwick, Thomas H.·2013·Journal of the American College of Cardiology

Abstract

OBJECTIVES The aim of this study was to identify the best echocardiographic method for sequential quantification of left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction (EF) and volumes in patients undergoing cancer chemotherapy. BACKGROUND Decisions regarding cancer therapy are based on temporal changes of EF. However the method for EF measurement with the lowest temporal variability is unknown. METHODS We selected patients in whom stable function in the face of chemotherapy for breast cancer was defined by stability of global longitudinal strain (GLS) at up to 5 time points (baseline, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months). In this way, changes in EF were considered to reflect temporal variability of measurements rather than cardiotoxicity. A comprehensive echocardiogram consisting of 2-dimensional (2D) and 3-dimensional (3D) acquisitions with and without contrast administration was performed at each time point. Stable LV function was defined as normal GLS (≤-16.0%) at each examination. The EF and volumes were measured with 2D-biplane Simpson's method, 2D-triplane, and 3-dimensional echocardiography (3DE) by 2 investigators blinded to any clinical data. Inter-, intra-, and test-retest variability were assessed in a subgroup. Variability was assessed by analysis of variance and compared with Levene's or t test. RESULTS Among 56 patients (all female, 54 ± 13 years of age), noncontrast 3D EF, end-diastolic volume, and end-systolic volume had significantly lower temporal variability than all other methods. Contrast only decreased the temporal variability of LV end-diastolic volume measurements by the 2D biplane method. Our data suggest that a temporal variability in EF of 0.06 might occur with noncontrast 3DE due to physiological differences and measurement variability, whereas this might be >0.10 with 2D methods. Overall, 3DE also had the best intra- and inter-observer as well as test-retest variability. CONCLUSIONS Noncontrast 3DE was the most reproducible technique for LVEF and LV volume measurements over 1 year of follow-up.

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.jacc.2012.09.035

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 689

Metadata

Authors
Thavendiranathan, P., Grant, A. D., Negishi, T., Plana, J. C., Popović, Z. B., & Marwick, T. H.
Venue
Journal of the American College of Cardiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2013-01
Volume
61
Issue
1
Pages
77-84
ISSN
0735-1097 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2116917468
Cited by
689
References
1
FWCI
17.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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: Reproducibility of Echocardiographic Techniques for Sequential Assessment of Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction and Volumes. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.jacc.2012.09.035
The paper
Thavendiranathan, P., Grant, A. D., Negishi, T., Plana, J. C., Popović, Z. B., & Marwick, T. H. (2013). Reproducibility of Echocardiographic Techniques for Sequential Assessment of Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction and Volumes. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2012.09.035

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.