↓ Skip to main content

Inter-study reproducibility of cardiovascular magnetic resonance tagging

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging, May 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
41 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
38 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
Inter-study reproducibility of cardiovascular magnetic resonance tagging
Published in
Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging, May 2013
DOI 10.1186/1532-429x-15-37
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sirisha Donekal, Bharath Ambale-Venkatesh, Seth Berkowitz, Colin O Wu, Eui Young Choi, Veronica Fernandes, Raymond Yan, Ahmed A Harouni, David A Bluemke, Joao A C Lima

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study is to determine the test-retest reliability of the measurement of regional myocardial function by cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) tagging using spatial modulation of magnetization. METHODS: Twenty-five participants underwent CMR tagging twice over 12 +/- 7 days. To assess the role of slice orientation on strain measurement, two healthy volunteers had a first exam, followed by image acquisition repeated with slices rotated +/-15 degrees out of true short axis, followed by a second exam in the true short axis plane. To assess the role of slice location, two healthy volunteers had whole heart tagging. The harmonic phase (HARP) method was used to analyze the tagged images. Peak midwall circumferential strain (Ecc), radial strain (Err), Lambda 1, Lambda 2, and Angle alpha were determined in basal, mid and apical slices. LV torsion, systolic and early diastolic circumferential strain and torsion rates were also determined. RESULTS: LV Ecc and torsion had excellent intra-, interobserver, and inter-study intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC range, 0.7 to 0.9). Err, Lambda 1, Lambda 2 and angle had excellent intra- and interobserver ICC than inter-study ICC. Angle had least inter-study reproducibility. Torsion rates had superior intra-, interobserver, and inter-study reproducibility to strain rates. The measurements of LV Ecc were comparable in all three slices with different short axis orientations (standard deviation of mean Ecc was 0.09, 0.18 and 0.16 at basal, mid and apical slices, respectively). The mean difference in LV Ecc between slices was more pronounced in most of the basal slices compared to the rest of the heart. CONCLUSIONS: Intraobserver and interobserver reproducibility of all strain and torsion parameters was excellent. Inter-study reproducibility of CMR tagging by SPAMM varied between different parameters as described in the results above and was superior for Ecc and LV torsion. The variation in LV Ecc measurement due to altered slice orientation is negligible compared to the variation due to slice location.Trial registration: This trial is registered as NCT00005487 at National Heart, Lung and Blood institute.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 5%
Unknown 36 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 18%
Student > Master 5 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 8%
Student > Postgraduate 3 8%
Other 7 18%
Unknown 4 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 53%
Engineering 6 16%
Computer Science 3 8%
Energy 1 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 7 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 15 May 2013.
All research outputs
#23,084,818
of 25,728,855 outputs
Outputs from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#1,293
of 1,386 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#181,130
of 206,341 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#18
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,728,855 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
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 7.3. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 206,341 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.