. 2018 Jul 9;20:48. doi: 10.1186/s12968-018-0462-y

Table 5.

Summary of literature on MBF repeatability

				Rest				Stress				MPR
	Author	Year	n	T test	r/ICC	RC (%)	CV (%)	T test	r/ICC	RC (%)	CV (%)	T test	r/ICC	RC (%)	CV (%)
Immediate (intrastudy)
PET	Nitzsche [30]	1996	15	0.33	0.99	33		0.16	0.97	13
	Kaufmann [14]	1999	21	ns		18		ns		25		ns		33
	Wyss [23]	2003	11	ns	0.77	21			0.77	27		ns	0.74	35
	Schindler [31]	2007	20		0.72	29			0.76	20
	Manabe [15]	2009	15	0.31		22		0.81		27		0.53		37
	Kitkungvan [18]	2017	120	0.93			11	0.74			10
	Ocneanu [19]	2017	12				21				15
CMR	Keith^a [32]	2017	10			53	13
CMR	This study			0.08	0.8	24	8	0.41	0.76	29	11
Delayed (interstudy)
PET	Nagamachi [16]	1996	30	ns	0.63	31		ns	0.69	18				20
	Schindler [31]	2007	20		0.75	30			0.71	23
	Sdringola [17]	2011	48	p < 0.05	0.68	35		ns	0.53	34		ns	0.47	38
	Johnson [24]	2015	50	0.46		41		0.13		34		0.29		34
	Kitkungvan [33]	2017	19	0.13				0.94			17	0.26			20
	Kitkungvan [18]	2017	120	0.13			21	0.81			19
CMR	Jerosch-Herold [20]	2008	30	0.001		30		0.11		41
	Larghat^a [8]	2013	11	0.2		45	20	0.61		73	40	0.11		69	35
	Likhite [21]	2016	10		0.77								0.88
	Keith^a [32]	2017	10			61	16
	This study			0.8	0.74	32	11	0.12	0.72	33	12	0.25	0.44	36	13

ns not significant (p value not reported), r Pearson correlation coefficient, RC reproducibility coefficient (% of mean), CV coefficient of variation

^aRepeatability data is given for single mid-ventricular slice, all other studies, data is for global myocardium, averaged from multiple slices. Where RC was not published, but sufficient data was provided, this has been calculated using 1.96*SD of difference. Similarly, all RC are given as % for ease of comparison