. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2017 Mar 1.

Published in final edited form as: J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2015 Dec 30;29(3):209–225.e6. doi: 10.1016/j.echo.2015.11.016

Table 4. Meta-regression results for LV global strain.

	P value (GLS)	P value (GCS)	P value (GRS)
Age	0.56	0.38	0.19
Gender	0.67	0.56	0.56
Body surface area	0.67	NA	0.34
Heart rate	0.34	0.78	0.22
Frame Rate	0.14	0.47	0.48
FR/HR ratio	0.23	0.56	0.14
Ultrasound Scanner^*	0.19	0.62	0.47
Model^**	0.43	0.12	0.17
Vendor Software^*	0.22	0.35	0.36
Version^***	0.23	0.37	0.69
Probe Size	0.26	0.43	0.32
Tissue tacking methodology	0.54	0.34	0.19
Location of strain value	0.14	0.47	0.48

NA, not analyzed because there were not enough variables

36 of the 43 eligible data sets in this meta-analysis used machines and software from one manufacturer (GE).

^**

Different models of GE machines (GE Vivid E7, E9, I), Philips (iE33, CX50), and Esaote (MyLab 50) ultrasound machines were used. Siemens and Toshiba models were also utilized, but the model was not specified.

^***

Different version of the GE EchoPAC software (6.0, 6.01., 6.3.6, 7.0, 108.1.4, 108.1.5 11.1.8, and BT 08), Philips QLAB software (6.0, 7.1, 8.0), Esoate (Xstrain), Toshiba (ultra extended), and Siemens (Syngo) were employed in the image acquisition and data analysis.