↓ Skip to main content

Variability in echocardiographic measurements of left ventricular function in septic shock patients

Overview of attention for article published in Cardiovascular Ultrasound, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (56th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
34 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
86 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
Variability in echocardiographic measurements of left ventricular function in septic shock patients
Published in
Cardiovascular Ultrasound, April 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12947-015-0015-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lina De Geer, Anna Oscarsson, Jan Engvall

Abstract

Echocardiography is increasingly used for haemodynamic evaluation and titration of therapy in intensive care, warranting reliable and reproducible measurements. The aim of this study was to evaluate the observer dependence of echocardiographic findings of left ventricular (LV) diastolic and systolic dysfunction in patients with septic shock. Echocardiograms performed in 47 adult patients admitted with septic shock to a general intensive care unit (ICU) were independently evaluated by one cardiologist and one intensivist for the following signs: decreased diastolic tissue velocity of the base of the LV septum (é), increased early mitral inflow (E) to é ratio (E/é), decreased LV ejection fraction (EF) and decreased LV global longitudinal peak strain (GLPS). Diastolic dysfunction was defined as é <8.0 cm/s and/or E/é ≥15 and systolic dysfunction as EF <50% and/or GLPS > -15%. Ten randomly selected examinations were re-analysed two months later. Pearson's r was used to test the correlation and Bland-Altman plots to assess the agreement between observers. Kappa statistics were used to test the consistency between readers and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) for inter- and intraobserver variability. In 44 patients (94%), image quality was sufficient for echocardiographic measurements. The agreement between observers was moderate (k = 0.60 for é, k = 0.50 for E/é and k = 0.60 for EF) to good (k = 0.71 for GLPS). Pearson's r was 0.76 for é, 0.85 for E/é, 0.78 for EF and 0.84 for GLPS (p < 0.001 for all four). The ICC between observers for é was very good (0.85; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.73-0.92), good for E/é (0.70; 95% CI 0.45 - 0.84), very good for EF (0.87; 95% CI 0.77 - 0.93), excellent for GLPS (0.91; 95% CI 0.74 - 0.95), and very good for all measures repeated by one of the observers. On Bland-Altman analysis, the mean differences and 95% limits of agreement for é, E/é, EF and GLPS were -0.01 (0.04 - 0.07), 2.0 (-14.2 - 18.1), 0.86 (-16 - 14.3) and 0.04 (-5.04 - 5.12), respectively. Moderate observer-related differences in assessing LV dysfunction were seen. GLPS is the least user dependent and most reproducible echocardiographic measurement of LV function in septic shock.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 86 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Portugal 1 1%
Unknown 85 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 20 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 10%
Student > Postgraduate 8 9%
Student > Master 8 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 8%
Other 18 21%
Unknown 16 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 52 60%
Engineering 4 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 2%
Computer Science 1 1%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 1%
Other 8 9%
Unknown 18 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 30 May 2015.
All research outputs
#7,457,182
of 22,799,071 outputs
Outputs from Cardiovascular Ultrasound
#84
of 310 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#90,528
of 264,077 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cardiovascular Ultrasound
#8
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,799,071 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 310 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% 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 264,077 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 56% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 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 50% of its contemporaries.