The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A systematic review and meta-analysis of the prevalence of left ventricular non-compaction in adults
Abstract
Aims: To assess the reported prevalence of left ventricular non-compaction (LVNC) in different adult cohorts, taking in to consideration the role of diagnostic criteria and imaging modalities used. Methods and results: A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting LVNC prevalence in adults. Studies were sourced from Pre-Medline, Medline, and Embase and assessed for eligibility according to inclusion criteria. Eligible studies provided a prevalence of LVNC in adult populations (≥12 years). Studies were assessed, and data extracted by two independent reviewers. Fifty-nine eligible studies documenting LVNC in 67 unique cohorts were included. The majority of studies were assessed as moderate or high risk of bias. The pooled prevalence estimates for LVNC were consistently higher amongst cohorts diagnosed on cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging (14.79%, n = 26; I 2 = 99.45%) compared with echocardiogram (1.28%, n = 36; I 2 = 98.17%). This finding was unchanged when analysis was restricted to studies at low or moderate risk of bias. The prevalence of LVNC varied between disease and population representative cohorts. Athletic cohorts demonstrated high pooled prevalence estimates on echocardiogram (3.16%, n = 5; I 2 = 97.37%) and CMR imaging (27.29%, n = 2). Conclusion: Left ventricular non-compaction in adult populations is a poorly defined entity which likely encompasses both physiological adaptation and pathological disease. There is a higher prevalence with the introduction of newer imaging technologies, specifically CMR imaging, which identify LVNC changes more readily. The clinical significance of these findings remains unclear; however, there is significant potential for overdiagnosis, overtreatment, and unnecessary 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.
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
Metaprop: a Stata command to perform meta-analysis of binomial data
Nyaga, V. N., Arbyn, M., & Aerts, M. (2014) · Archives of Public Health · doi:10.1186/2049-3258-72-39 · Cited by 2,139
Cited by
Kleindorfer, D. O., Towfighi, A., Chaturvedi, S., Cockroft, K. M., Gutierrez, J., Lombardi-Hill, D., Kamel, H., Kernan, W. N., Kittner, S. J., Leira, E. C., et al. (2021) · Stroke · doi:10.1161/str.0000000000000375 · Cited by 3,237
Wilde, A. A. M., Semsarian, C., Márquez, M. F., Shamloo, A. S., Ackerman, M. J., Ashley, E. A., Sternick, E. B., Barajas-Martinez, H., Behr, E. R., Bezzina, C. R., et al. (2022) · Europace · doi:10.1093/europace/euac030 · Cited by 380
Self-citationArcsine‐based transformations for meta‐analysis of proportions: Pros, cons, and alternatives
Lin, L., & Xu, C. (2020) · Health Science Reports · doi:10.1002/hsr2.178 · Cited by 339
Metadata
- Authors
- Ross, S. B., Jones, K., Blanch, B., Puranik, R., McGeechan, K., Barratt, A., & Semsarian, C.
- Venue
- European Heart Journal
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2019-05-29
- Volume
- 41
- Issue
- 14
- Pages
- 1428-1436
- ISSN
- 0195-668X (ISSN-L)
- 1522-9645
- OpenAlex
- W2947021738
- Cited by
- 171
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 5.90
- 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: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the prevalence of left ventricular non-compaction in adults. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/eurheartj/ehz317
- The paper
- Ross, S. B., Jones, K., Blanch, B., Puranik, R., McGeechan, K., Barratt, A., & Semsarian, C. (2020). A systematic review and meta-analysis of the prevalence of left ventricular non-compaction in adults. European Heart Journal. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehz317
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.