Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25612307›Full record

Trial reportPloS one2015

Comparison of an oscillometric method with cardiac magnetic resonance for the analysis of aortic pulse wave velocity.

Hans-Josef Feistritzer, Sebastian J Reinstadler, Gert Klug, Christian Kremser, Benjamin Seidner, Regina Esterhammer, Michael F Schocke, Wolfgang-Michael Franz, Bernhard Metzler

Abstract readClinical TrialComparative Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

32 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Observational
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Hans-Josef FeistritzerUniversity Clinic of Internal Medicine III, Cardiology and Angiology, Medical University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria.
Sebastian J ReinstadlerUniversity Clinic of Internal Medicine III, Cardiology and Angiology, Medical University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria.
Gert KlugUniversity Clinic of Internal Medicine III, Cardiology and Angiology, Medical University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria.
Christian KremserDepartment of Radiology I, Medical University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria.
Benjamin SeidnerUniversity Clinic of Internal Medicine III, Cardiology and Angiology, Medical University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria.
Regina EsterhammerDepartment of Radiology I, Medical University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria.
Michael F SchockeDepartment of Radiology I, Medical University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria.
Wolfgang-Michael FranzUniversity Clinic of Internal Medicine III, Cardiology and Angiology, Medical University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria.
Bernhard MetzlerUniversity Clinic of Internal Medicine III, Cardiology and Angiology, Medical University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesPulse wave velocity (PWV) is the proposed gold-standard for the assessment of aortic elastic properties. The aim of this study was to compare aortic PWV determined by a recently developed oscillometric device with cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR).

methodsPWV was assessed in 40 volunteers with two different methods. The oscillometric method (PWVOSC) is based on a transfer function from the brachial pressure waves determined by oscillometric blood pressure measurements with a common cuff (Mobil-O-Graph, I.E.M. Stolberg, Germany). CMR was used to determine aortic PWVCMR with the use of the transit time method based on phase-contrast imaging at the level of the ascending and abdominal aorta on a clinical 1.5 Tesla scanner (Siemens, Erlangen, Germany).

resultsThe median age of the study population was 34 years (IQR: 24-55 years, 11 females). A very strong correlation was found between PWVOSC and PWVCMR (r = 0.859, p < 0.001). Mean PWVOSC was 6.7 ± 1.8 m/s and mean PWVCMR was 6.1 ± 1.8 m/s (p < 0.001). Analysis of agreement between the two measurements using Bland-Altman method showed a bias of 0.57 m/s (upper and lower limit of agreement: 2.49 m/s and -1.34 m/s). The corresponding coefficient of variation between both measurements was 15%.

conclusionAortic pulse wave velocity assessed by transformation of the brachial pressure waveform showed an acceptable agreement with the CMR-derived transit time method.

Indexed as

Image Processing, Computer-AssistedPulse Wave AnalysisAdultAortaAortographyElasticity Imaging TechniquesHumansMagnetic Resonance AngiographyMaleMiddle Aged

Identifiers

PMID25612307
PMCPMC4303422

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.