Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 726

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Assessment of left ventricular ejection fraction and volumes by real-time, two-dimensional echocardiography. A comparison of cineangiographic and radionuclide techniques.

Open access
Folland, E D, Parisi, A F, Moynihan, P F, Jones, D R, Feldman, C L, Tow, D E·1979·Circulation

Abstract

Five different algorithms for determining left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction (EF) and volumes from two-dimensional echocardiographic examination (TDE) were compared with standard methods for obtaining EF and volume from x-ray cineangiography (cine) and EF from radionuclide ventriculography (RVG) in 35 patients. Although all methods correlated positively, the degree of correlation varied with the algorithm used. For EF determination, TDE algorithms (especially those using multiple planes of section) were superior to unidimensional algorithms commonly used with M-mode echocardiography. The best algorithm (modified Simpson's rule) correlated well enough with cine EF (r = 0.78; SEE 0.097) and RVG EF (r = 0.75; SEE 0.087) to make clinically useful estimates. TDE volumes also correlated meaningfully with cine end-diastolic and end-systole volumes (r = 084; n = 70) but were associated with a large standard error of the estimate (43 ml) and offered less advantage over unidimensional volume estimates. Quantitative application of TDE appears to be a useful noninvasive method of evaluating LVEF, but is not as useful for estimating LV volumes.

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 · 10.1161/01.cir.60.4.760

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.

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

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Folland, E. D., Parisi, A. F., Moynihan, P. F., Jones, D. R., Feldman, C. L., & Tow, D. E.
Venue
Circulation
Published
1979-10
Volume
60
Issue
4
Pages
760-766
ISSN
  • 0009-7322 (ISSN-L)
  • 1524-4539
OpenAlex
W2048309569
Cited by
726
References
0
FWCI
17.70
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

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.