The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Assessment of systolic left ventricular function: a multi-centre comparison of cineventriculography, cardiac magnetic resonance imaging, unenhanced and contrast-enhanced echocardiography
Abstract
AIMS: To assess the agreement of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) determinations from unenhanced echocardiography, contrast-enhanced echocardiography, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and cineventriculography as well as the inter-observer agreement for each method. METHODS AND RESULTS: In 120 patients, with evenly distributed EF-groups (> 55, 35-55, < 35%), cineventriculography, unenhanced echocardiography with second harmonic imaging, and contrast echocardiography at low mechanical index with iv administration of SonoVue were performed. In addition, cardiac MRI at 1.5 T using a steady-state free precession sequence was performed in a subset of 55 patients. On-site, and two blinded off-site assessments were performed for unenhanced and contrast echocardiography, cineventriculography, and MRI according to pre-defined standards. Intra-class correlation coefficients (ICCs) were determined to assess inter-observer reliability between all three readers (i.e. one on-site and two off-site). EF was 56.2 +/- 18.3% by cineventriculography, 54.1 +/- 12.9% by MRI, 50.9 +/- 15.3% by unenhanced echocardiography, and 54.6 +/- 16.8% by contrast echocardiography. Correlation on EF between cineventriculography and echocardiography increased from 0.72 with unenhanced echocardiography to 0.83 with contrast echocardiography (P < 0.05). Similarly, correlation on EF between MRI and echocardiography increased from 0.60 with unenhanced echocardiography to 0.77 with contrast echocardiography (P < 0.05). The inter-observer reliability ICC was 0.91 (95% CI 0.88-0.94) in contrast echocardiography, followed by cardiac MRI (0.86; 95% CI 0.80-0.92), cineventriculography (0.80; 95% CI 0.74-0.85), and unenhanced echocardiography (0.79; 95% CI 0.74-0.85). CONCLUSIONS: Unenhanced echocardiography resulted in slight underestimation of EF and only moderate correlation compared with cineventriculography and MRI. Contrast echocardiography resulted in more accurate EF and significantly improved correlation with cineventriculography and MRI. Contrast echocardiography significantly improved inter-observer agreement on EF compared with unenhanced echocardiography. Inter-observer reliability on EF using contrast echocardiography reaches a level comparable to MRI and is better than those obtained by cineventriculography.
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
Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability.
Shrout, P. E., & Fleiss, J. L. (1979) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.86.2.420 · Cited by 24,532
Pfeffer, M. A., Braunwald, E., Moyé, L. A., Basta, L., Brown, E. J., Cuddy, T. E., Davis, B. R., Geltman, E. M., Goldman, S., Flaker, G. C., et al. (1992) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm199209033271001 · Cited by 5,911
Cited by
Curigliano, G., Lenihan, D., Fradley, M., Ganatra, S., Barac, A., Blaes, A., Herrmann, J., Porter, C., Lyon, A. R., Lancellotti, P., et al. (2020) · Annals of Oncology · doi:10.1016/j.annonc.2019.10.023 · Cited by 1,031
Porter, T. R., Mulvagh, S. L., Abdelmoneim, S. S., Becher, H., Belcik, J. T., Bierig, M., Choy, J., Gaibazzi, N., Gillam, L. D., Janardhanan, R., et al. (2018) · Journal of the American Society of Echocardiography · doi:10.1016/j.echo.2017.11.013 · Cited by 432
Self-citationHalliday, B. P., Gulati, A., Ali, A., Guha, K., Newsome, S., Arzanauskaite, M., Vassiliou, V. S., Lota, A., Izgi, C., Tayal, U., et al. (2017) · Circulation · doi:10.1161/circulationaha.116.026910 · Cited by 384
Pellikka, P. A., She, L., Holly, T. A., Lin, G., Varadarajan, P., Pai, R. G., Bonow, R. O., Pohost, G. M., Panza, J. A., Berman, D. S., et al. (2018) · JAMA Network Open · doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.1456 · Cited by 238
Doxorubicin‐Induced Cardiomyopathy in Children
Mancilla, T. R., Iskra, B., & Aune, G. J. (2019) · Comprehensive Physiology · doi:10.1002/cphy.c180017 · Cited by 108
Metadata
- Authors
- Hoffmann, R., von Bardeleben, S., ten Cate, F., Borges, A. C., Kasprzak, J., Firschke, C., Lafitte, S., Al-Saadi, N., Kuntz-Hehner, S., Engelhardt, M., Becher, H., & Vanoverschelde, J. L.
- Venue
- European Heart Journal
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2004-12-17
- Volume
- 26
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 607-616
- ISSN
- 0195-668X (ISSN-L)
- 1522-9645
- OpenAlex
- W2162738486
- Cited by
- 288
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 8.26
- 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: Assessment of systolic left ventricular function: a multi-centre comparison of cineventriculography, cardiac magnetic resonance imaging, unenhanced and contrast-enhanced echocardiography. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/eurheartj/ehi083
- The paper
- Hoffmann, R., von Bardeleben, S., ten Cate, F., Borges, A. C., Kasprzak, J., Firschke, C., Lafitte, S., Al-Saadi, N., Kuntz-Hehner, S., Engelhardt, M., Becher, H., & Vanoverschelde, J. L. (2005). Assessment of systolic left ventricular function: a multi-centre comparison of cineventriculography, cardiac magnetic resonance imaging, unenhanced and contrast-enhanced echocardiography. European Heart Journal. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehi083
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.