Skip to main content
. 2019 Apr 25;21:24. doi: 10.1186/s12968-019-0532-9

Table 5.

Agreement between manual and automated analyses according to image quality

Parameter Mean Difference (SD of the Diff.) ICC (95% CI) CoV (%)
Good image quality (Score ≤ 1) LV (n = 187) LV Mass 3.0 (7.9) 0.96 (0.94–0.98) 12.8
LV EDV 3.4 (6.2) 0.99 (0.97–0.99) 6.5
LV ESV 1.7 (4.1) 0.99 (0.99–1.00) 9.0
LV SV 1.5 (5.2) 0.95 (0.93–0.96) 10.5
LV EF −0.6 (3.5) 0.98 (0.98–0.99) 6.2
RV (n = 188) RV EDV 7.8 (10.5) 0.93 (0.75–0.97) 12.2
RV ESV 1.0 (6.9) 0.96 (0.95–0.97) 16.9
RV SV 6.7 (8.5) 0.79 (0.40–0.90) 18.9
RV EF 3.0 (6.1) 0.88 (0.78–0.93) 11.5
Reduced image quality (Score ≥ 2) LV (n = 113) LV Mass 1.3 (11.2) 0.94 (0.91–0.96) 16.7
LV EDV 7.5 (9.7) 0.95 (0.82–0.98) 10.8
LV ESV 8.9 (16.3) 0.87 (0.74–0.93) 37.9
LV SV −1.6 (9.6) 0.86 (0.80–0.90) 20.5
LV EF −5.6 (7.5) 0.90 (0.67–0.96) 13.8
RV (n = 112) RV EDV 6.7 (14.3) 0.91 (0.83–0.95) 16.8
RV ESV −5.9 (12.1) 0.84 (0.70–0.90) 30.2
RV SV 12.7 (12.6) 0.67 (0.02–0.86) 27.9
RV EF 10.6 (12.1) 0.56 (0.03–0.77) 22.5

Biventricular volumes and LV mass were indexed to body surface area. SD standard deviation, ICC intraclass correlation coefficient, CoV coefficient of variation, LV left ventricular, RV right ventricular, EDV/ESV end-diastolic/systolic volume, SV stroke volume, EF ejection fraction