. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2021 Mar 16.

Published in final edited form as: J Magn Reson Imaging. 2018 Apr 11;48(4):1147–1158. doi: 10.1002/jmri.26040

TABLE 3.

Intermethod (Direct vs. Indirect) Consistency for Quantifying Regurgitant Volume

	Mitral Regurgitation			Tricuspid Regurgitation
	Pearson	95% Limits of agreement	ICC	Pearson	95% Limits of agreement	ICC
Regurgitant flow volume (L/min)
2D PC	0.868	(−1.44, 1.98)	0.857	0.905	(−2.47, 4.18)	0.870
4D flow	0.794	(−1.56, 3.28)	0.654	0.938	(−2.16, 4.63)	0.864
Regurgitant fraction (%)
2D PC	0.902	(−11.1, 13.8)	0.904	0.846	(−16.5, 23.0)	0.840
4D Flow	0.819	(−10.6, 19.7)	0.777	0.950	(−5.14, 17.8)	0.903
Regurgitant volume (mL/beat)
2D PC	0.831	(−23.0, 29.9)	0.834	0.832	(−43.8, 69.8)	0.796
4D Flow	0.718	(−25.1, 48.0)	0.627	0.920	(−30.4, 67.4)	0.831

Data in parentheses are Bland-Altman 95% limits of agreement.

ICC = interclass correlation coefficient, 2-way random effects absolute agreement model.