↓ Skip to main content

Effects of slice orientation on reproducibility of sequential assessment of right ventricular volumes and ejection fraction: short-axis vs transverse SSFP cine cardiovascular magnetic resonance

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
23 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Effects of slice orientation on reproducibility of sequential assessment of right ventricular volumes and ejection fraction: short-axis vs transverse SSFP cine cardiovascular magnetic resonance
Published in
Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging, September 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12968-016-0282-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Luigia D’Errico, Mariana M. Lamacie, Laura Jimenez Juan, Djeven Deva, Rachel M. Wald, Sebastian Ley, Kate Hanneman, Paaladinesh Thavendiranathan, Bernd J. Wintersperger

Abstract

Test-retest reproducibility is of utmost importance in follow-up of right ventricular (RV) volumes and function; optimal slice orientation though is not yet known. We compared test-retest reproducibility and intra-/inter-observer variability of right ventricular (RV) volumes and function assessed with short-axis and transverse cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR). Eighteen volunteers underwent cine CMR for RV assessment obtaining ventricular coverage in short-axis and transverse slice orientation. Additional 2D phase contrast flow imaging of the main pulmonary artery (MPA) was performed. After complete repositioning repeat acquisitions were performed. Data sets were contoured by two blinded observers. Statistical analysis included Student's t-test, Bland-Altman plots, intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) and 2-way ANOVA, SEM and minimal detectable difference calculations. Heart rates (65.0 ± 7.4 vs. 67.6 ± 9.9 bpm; P = 0.1) and MPA flow (89.8 ± 16.6 vs. 87.2 ± 14.9 mL; P = 0.1) did not differ between imaging sessions. EDV and ESV demonstrated an inter-study bias of 0.4 %[-9.5 %,10.3 %] and 2.1 %[-12.3 %,16.4 %] for short-axis and 1.1 %[-7.3 %,9.4 %] and 0.8 %[-16.0 %,17.6 %] for transverse orientation, respectively. There was no significant interaction between imaging orientation and interstudy reproducibility (p = 0.395-0.824), intra-observer variability (p = 0.726-0.862) or inter-observer variability (p = 0.447-0.706) by 2-way ANOVA. Inter-observer agreement by ICC was greater for short axis versus transverse orientation for all parameters (0.769-0.986 vs. 0.625-0.983, respectively). Minimal detectable differences for short axis and transverse orientations were 10.1 mL/11.5 mL for EDV, 8.3 mL/8.4 mL for ESV and 4.1 % vs. 4.7 % for EF, respectively. Short-axis and transverse orientation both provide reliable and reproducible measures for follow-up of RV volumes and global function. Therefore, additional transverse SSFP cine CMR may not necessarily be required if performed for the sole purpose of quantitative volumetric RV assessment.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 23 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 4 17%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 13%
Researcher 3 13%
Student > Master 2 9%
Student > Bachelor 1 4%
Other 3 13%
Unknown 7 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 48%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 4%
Chemistry 1 4%
Computer Science 1 4%
Unknown 9 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 October 2016.
All research outputs
#5,502,532
of 25,711,518 outputs
Outputs from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#381
of 1,386 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#83,184
of 329,743 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#11
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,711,518 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 78th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,386 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 329,743 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.