BACKGROUND: Although echocardiography is used extensively in clinical medicine, guidelines for quantitative interpretation of echocardiographic measurements are unavailable. The goals of this investigation were to provide an overview of scientific standards for formulating reference values, with clinical chemistry used as a model, to evaluate published echocardiographic reference limits, to survey clinical echocardiography laboratories regarding their interpretation of echocardiographic measurements, and to provide recommendations for improving the interpretation and reporting of echocardiographic measurements. METHODS AND RESULTS: We reviewed the original reports of the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry on guidelines for formulating reference values. We obtained published reports on echocardiographic reference limits through searches of electronic databases supplemented by a manual search of relevant bibliographies. We also surveyed echocardiographic laboratories in 35 adult acute-care hospitals in Eastern Massachusetts. Studies on echocardiographic reference values were evaluated with the use of guidelines from clinical chemistry. Responses from the 29 participating echocardiographic laboratories were evaluated for their practice of quantitative echocardiographic interpretation. There is considerable heterogeneity in the echocardiographic reference values available in the literature. There is also a lack of agreement in the literature and among echocardiographers regarding the partitioning of reference values (by sex, ethnicity, or age), the anthropometric measure to be used for indexation, and the choice of cut-points for categorizing values within the abnormal range. CONCLUSIONS: We advocate that echocardiographic reference limits be standardized and a consensus generated regarding the partitioning of reference limits and the indexation of echocardiographic measurements. Such measures can aid in quantitative echocardiographic interpretation and render the results more scientific and consistent.
BACKGROUND: Although echocardiography is used extensively in clinical medicine, guidelines for quantitative interpretation of echocardiographic measurements are unavailable. The goals of this investigation were to provide an overview of scientific standards for formulating reference values, with clinical chemistry used as a model, to evaluate published echocardiographic reference limits, to survey clinical echocardiography laboratories regarding their interpretation of echocardiographic measurements, and to provide recommendations for improving the interpretation and reporting of echocardiographic measurements. METHODS AND RESULTS: We reviewed the original reports of the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry on guidelines for formulating reference values. We obtained published reports on echocardiographic reference limits through searches of electronic databases supplemented by a manual search of relevant bibliographies. We also surveyed echocardiographic laboratories in 35 adult acute-care hospitals in Eastern Massachusetts. Studies on echocardiographic reference values were evaluated with the use of guidelines from clinical chemistry. Responses from the 29 participating echocardiographic laboratories were evaluated for their practice of quantitative echocardiographic interpretation. There is considerable heterogeneity in the echocardiographic reference values available in the literature. There is also a lack of agreement in the literature and among echocardiographers regarding the partitioning of reference values (by sex, ethnicity, or age), the anthropometric measure to be used for indexation, and the choice of cut-points for categorizing values within the abnormal range. CONCLUSIONS: We advocate that echocardiographic reference limits be standardized and a consensus generated regarding the partitioning of reference limits and the indexation of echocardiographic measurements. Such measures can aid in quantitative echocardiographic interpretation and render the results more scientific and consistent.
Authors: Sachin Batra; Victor I Machicao; John S Bynon; Shivang Mehta; Rajasekhar Tanikella; Michael J Krowka; Steven Zacks; James Trotter; Kari E Roberts; Robert S Brown; Steven M Kawut; Michael B Fallon Journal: Liver Transpl Date: 2014-06 Impact factor: 5.799
Authors: Michael L Chuang; Philimon Gona; Gilion L T F Hautvast; Carol J Salton; Marcel Breeuwer; Christopher J O'Donnell; Warren J Manning Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2013-10-07 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Seisyou Kou; Luis Caballero; Raluca Dulgheru; Damien Voilliot; Carla De Sousa; George Kacharava; George D Athanassopoulos; Daniele Barone; Monica Baroni; Nuno Cardim; Jose Juan Gomez De Diego; Andreas Hagendorff; Christine Henri; Krasimira Hristova; Teresa Lopez; Julien Magne; Gonzalo De La Morena; Bogdan A Popescu; Martin Penicka; Tolga Ozyigit; Jose David Rodrigo Carbonero; Alessandro Salustri; Nico Van De Veire; Ralph Stephan Von Bardeleben; Dragos Vinereanu; Jens-Uwe Voigt; Jose Luis Zamorano; Erwan Donal; Roberto M Lang; Luigi P Badano; Patrizio Lancellotti Journal: Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2014-01-21 Impact factor: 6.875
Authors: Katrina K Poppe; Robert N Doughty; Helen J Walsh; Christopher M Triggs; Gillian A Whalley Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2014-03-07 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Bryan Ristow; Sadia Ali; Beeya Na; Mintu P Turakhia; Mary A Whooley; Nelson B Schiller Journal: J Am Soc Echocardiogr Date: 2010-03-03 Impact factor: 5.251
Authors: Susan B Yeon; Carol J Salton; Philimon Gona; Michael L Chuang; Susan J Blease; Yuchi Han; Connie W Tsao; Peter G Danias; Daniel Levy; Christopher J O'Donnell; Warren J Manning Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2014-05-12 Impact factor: 4.813