Why the study?
A framework was needed to compare feature tracking global longitudinal strain derived from different post-processing software packages, particularly given the growing number of CMR-FT tools.
How do different cardiovascular magnetic resonance strain software packages compare in their ability to discriminate outcomes in patients with HFpEF?
Population
Patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction
Comparison
Feature tracking GLS derived from different post-processing software packages
Authors
Loading...
Framework for CMR GLS software comparison in HFpEF; leaves open outcome discrimination pending public validation datasets.
How do different cardiovascular magnetic resonance strain software packages compare in their ability to discriminate outcomes in patients with HFpEF?
A framework was illustrated to compare different CMR feature tracking software packages for GLS measurement, highlighting the need for publicly available imaging datasets with outcomes for validation.
Zhang et al. (2021) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: