↓ Skip to main content

The value of core lab stress echocardiography interpretations: observations from the ISCHEMIA Trial

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

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
42 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
The value of core lab stress echocardiography interpretations: observations from the ISCHEMIA Trial
Published in
Cardiovascular Ultrasound, December 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12947-015-0043-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Akihisa Kataoka, Marielle Scherrer-Crosbie, Roxy Senior, Gilbert Gosselin, Denis Phaneuf, Gabriela Guzman, Gian Perna, Alfonso Lara, Sasko Kedev, Andrea Mortara, Mohammad El-Hajjar, Leslee J. Shaw, Harmony R. Reynolds, Michael H. Picard

Abstract

Stress echocardiography (SE) is dependent on subjective interpretations. As a prelude to the International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches (ISCHEMIA) Trial, potential sites were required to submit two SE, one with moderate or severe left ventricular (LV) myocardial ischemia and one with mild ischemia. We evaluated the concordance of site and core lab interpretations. Eighty-one SE were submitted from 41 international sites. Ischemia was classified by the number of new or worsening segmental LV wall motion abnormalities (WMA): none, mild (1 or 2) or moderate or severe (3 or more) by the sites and the core lab. Core lab classified 6 SE as no ischemia, 35 mild and 40 moderate or greater. There was agreement between the site and core in 66 of 81 total cases (81 %, weighted kappa coefficient [K] =0.635). Agreement was similar for SE type - 24 of 30 exercise (80 %, K = 0.571) vs. 41 of 49 pharmacologic (84 %, K = 0.685). The agreement between poor or fair image quality (27 of 36 cases, 75 %, K = 0.492) was not as good as for the good or excellent image quality cases (39 of 45 cases, 87 %, K = 0.755). Differences in concordance were noted for degree of ischemia with the majority of discordant interpretations (87 %) occurring in patients with no or mild LV myocardial ischemia. While site SE interpretations are largely concordant with core lab interpretations, this appears dependent on image quality and the extent of WMA. Thus core lab interpretations remain important in clinical trials where consistency of interpretation across a range of cases is critical. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01471522.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 42 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 12%
Student > Master 5 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 7%
Other 3 7%
Other 7 17%
Unknown 13 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 24%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 5%
Computer Science 2 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 5%
Neuroscience 2 5%
Other 5 12%
Unknown 19 45%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 19 November 2019.
All research outputs
#7,599,335
of 23,310,485 outputs
Outputs from Cardiovascular Ultrasound
#81
of 315 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#121,496
of 390,622 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cardiovascular Ultrasound
#3
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,310,485 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 315 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 73% 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 390,622 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 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.