. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2017 Dec 22.

Published in final edited form as: J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2017 Jul 6;30(9):879–885. doi: 10.1016/j.echo.2017.05.018

Table 3.

Impact of experience on the accuracy of the automated chamber quantification

HM experience	EDV (mL)		ESV (mL)		EF (%)		LAV (mL)
HM experience	Bias ± SD	r value	Bias ± SD	r value	Bias ± SD	r value	Bias ± SD	r value
No editing	−12 ± 29	0.97	−2.2 ± 30	0.96	−3.4 ± 17	0.69	−6.7 ± 19	0.95
Experienced with editing	4.9 ± 26	0.98	1.8 ± 17	0.99	0.3 ± 10	0.90	−1.2 ± 14	0.98
Inexperienced with editing	−17 ± 39	0.95	−20 ± 33	0.96	7.4 ± 17	0.71	−8.2 ± 19	0.95

Comparisons between 3D-guided biplane and the automated measurements with and without endocardial boundary corrections, by experienced and inexperienced readers, in patients with adequate or good-quality images (n = 71).