Critical Review of Current Approaches for Echocardiographic Reproducibility and Reliability Assessment in Clinical Research.

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.

Department

Description

Provenance

Citation

Published Version (Please cite this version)

10.1016/j.echo.2016.08.006

Publication Info

Crowley, Anna Lisa, Eric Yow, Huiman X Barnhart, Melissa A Daubert, Robert Bigelow, Daniel C Sullivan, Michael Pencina, Pamela S Douglas, et al. (2016). Critical Review of Current Approaches for Echocardiographic Reproducibility and Reliability Assessment in Clinical Research. Journal of the American Society of Echocardiography : official publication of the American Society of Echocardiography, 29(12). pp. 1144–1154.e7. 10.1016/j.echo.2016.08.006 Retrieved from https://hdl.handle.net/10161/22519.

This is constructed from limited available data and may be imprecise. To cite this article, please review & use the official citation provided by the journal.


Unless otherwise indicated, scholarly articles published by Duke faculty members are made available here with a CC-BY-NC (Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial) license, as enabled by the Duke Open Access Policy. If you wish to use the materials in ways not already permitted under CC-BY-NC, please consult the copyright owner. Other materials are made available here through the author’s grant of a non-exclusive license to make their work openly accessible.