↓ Skip to main content

Reproducibility of a novel echocardiographic 3D automated software for the assessment of mitral valve anatomy

Overview of attention for article published in Cardiovascular Ultrasound, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
17 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
Reproducibility of a novel echocardiographic 3D automated software for the assessment of mitral valve anatomy
Published in
Cardiovascular Ultrasound, May 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12947-016-0061-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Iolanda Aquila, Ariana González, Covadonga Fernández-Golfín, Luis Miguel Rincón, Eduardo Casas, Ana García, Rocio Hinojar, José Julio Jiménez-Nacher, José Luis Zamorano

Abstract

3D transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) is superior to 2D TEE in quantitative anatomic evaluation of the mitral valve (MV) but it shows limitations regarding automatic quantification. Here, we tested the inter-/intra-observer reproducibility of a novel full-automated software in the evaluation of MV anatomy compared to manual 3D assessment. Thirty-six out of 61 screened patients referred to our Cardiac Imaging Unit for TEE were retrospectively included. 3D TEE analysis was performed both manually and with the automated software by two independent operators. Mitral annular area, intercommissural distance, anterior leaflet length and posterior leaflet length were assessed. A significant correlation between both methods was found for all variables: intercommissural diameter (r = 0.84, p < 0.01), mitral annular area (r = 0.94, p > 0, 01), anterior leaflet length (r = 0.83, p < 0.01) and posterior leaflet length (r = 0.67, p < 0.01). Interobserver variability assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient was superior for the automatic software: intercommisural distance 0.997 vs. 0.76; mitral annular area 0.957 vs. 0.858; anterior leaflet length 0.963 vs. 0.734 and posterior leaflet length 0.936 vs. 0.838. Intraobserver variability was good for both methods with a better level of agreement with the automatic software. The novel 3D automated software is reproducible in MV anatomy assessment. The incorporation of this new tool in clinical MV assessment may improve patient selection and outcomes for MV interventions as well as patient diagnosis and prognosis stratification. Yet, high-quality 3D images are indispensable.

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 17 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 17 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 24%
Student > Postgraduate 4 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 6%
Unspecified 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 6 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 29%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 6%
Unspecified 1 6%
Computer Science 1 6%
Engineering 1 6%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 8 47%
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 17 May 2016.
All research outputs
#20,657,128
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Cardiovascular Ultrasound
#258
of 328 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#259,666
of 342,338 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cardiovascular Ultrasound
#8
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 328 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% 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 342,338 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.