Anna Lisa Crowley1, Eric Yow2, Huiman X Barnhart2, Melissa A Daubert3, Robert Bigelow2, Daniel C Sullivan4, Michael Pencina2, Pamela S Douglas3. 1. Department of Medicine, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina; Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, North Carolina. Electronic address: annalisa.crowley@duke.edu. 2. Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, North Carolina. 3. Department of Medicine, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina; Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, North Carolina. 4. Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, North Carolina; Department of Radiology, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is no broadly accepted standard method for assessing the quality of echocardiographic measurements in clinical research reports, despite the recognized importance of this information in assessing the quality of study results. METHODS: Twenty unique clinical studies were identified reporting echocardiographic data quality for determinations of left ventricular (LV) volumes (n = 13), ejection fraction (n = 12), mass (n = 9), outflow tract diameter (n = 3), and mitral Doppler peak early velocity (n = 4). To better understand the range of possible estimates of data quality and to compare their utility, reported reproducibility measures were tabulated, and de novo estimates were then calculated for missing measures, including intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), 95% limits of agreement, coefficient of variation (CV), coverage probability, and total deviation index, for each variable for each study. RESULTS: The studies varied in approaches to reproducibility testing, sample size, and metrics assessed and values reported. Reported metrics included mean difference and its SD (n = 7 studies), ICC (n = 5), CV (n = 4), and Bland-Altman limits of agreement (n = 4). Once de novo estimates of all missing indices were determined, reasonable reproducibility targets for each were identified as those achieved by the majority of studies. These included, for LV end-diastolic volume, ICC > 0.95, CV < 7%, and coverage probability > 0.93 within 30 mL; for LV ejection fraction, ICC > 0.85, CV < 8%, and coverage probability > 0.85 within 10%; and for LV mass, ICC > 0.85, CV < 10%, and coverage probability > 0.60 within 20 g. CONCLUSIONS: Assessment of data quality in echocardiographic clinical research is infrequent, and methods vary substantially. A first step to standardizing echocardiographic quality reporting is to standardize assessments and reporting metrics. Potential benefits include clearer communication of data quality and the identification of achievable targets to benchmark quality improvement initiatives. Copyright Â
BACKGROUND: There is no broadly accepted standard method for assessing the quality of echocardiographic measurements in clinical research reports, despite the recognized importance of this information in assessing the quality of study results. METHODS: Twenty unique clinical studies were identified reporting echocardiographic data quality for determinations of left ventricular (LV) volumes (n = 13), ejection fraction (n = 12), mass (n = 9), outflow tract diameter (n = 3), and mitral Doppler peak early velocity (n = 4). To better understand the range of possible estimates of data quality and to compare their utility, reported reproducibility measures were tabulated, and de novo estimates were then calculated for missing measures, including intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), 95% limits of agreement, coefficient of variation (CV), coverage probability, and total deviation index, for each variable for each study. RESULTS: The studies varied in approaches to reproducibility testing, sample size, and metrics assessed and values reported. Reported metrics included mean difference and its SD (n = 7 studies), ICC (n = 5), CV (n = 4), and Bland-Altman limits of agreement (n = 4). Once de novo estimates of all missing indices were determined, reasonable reproducibility targets for each were identified as those achieved by the majority of studies. These included, for LV end-diastolic volume, ICC > 0.95, CV < 7%, and coverage probability > 0.93 within 30 mL; for LV ejection fraction, ICC > 0.85, CV < 8%, and coverage probability > 0.85 within 10%; and for LV mass, ICC > 0.85, CV < 10%, and coverage probability > 0.60 within 20 g. CONCLUSIONS: Assessment of data quality in echocardiographic clinical research is infrequent, and methods vary substantially. A first step to standardizing echocardiographic quality reporting is to standardize assessments and reporting metrics. Potential benefits include clearer communication of data quality and the identification of achievable targets to benchmark quality improvement initiatives. Copyright Â
Authors: Edward Sze; Zainab Samad; Allison Dunning; Kristen Bova Campbell; Zak Loring; Brett D Atwater; Karen Chiswell; Joseph A Kisslo; Eric J Velazquez; James P Daubert Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2018-01-23 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Thomas E Ingram; Steph Baker; Jane Allen; Sarah Ritzmann; Nina Bual; Laura Duffy; Chris Ellis; Karina Bunting; Noel Black; Marcus Peck; Sandeep S Hothi; Vishal Sharma; Keith Pearce; Richard P Steeds; Navroz Masani Journal: Echo Res Pract Date: 2018-12-01
Authors: Jojanneke J G T van Summeren; Jan Willem Klunder; Gea A Holtman; Boudewijn J Kollen; Marjolein Y Berger; Janny H Dekker Journal: J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr Date: 2018-12 Impact factor: 2.839
Authors: Lucia Wilke; Francisca E Abellan Schneyder; Markus Roskopf; Andreas C Jenke; Andreas Heusch; Kai O Hensel Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2018-06-15 Impact factor: 4.379