Why the study?
The authors sought to extend two methodological points regarding multiplicity adjustment and the clinical interpretation of limits of agreement in a recent intermodality comparison of left ventricular longitudinal strain.
Population
55 stable patients with chronic ischemic heart disease and reduced ejection fraction
Comparison
FT-CMR vs 2D-STE
Key result
Feature-tracking cardiac magnetic resonance and 2D speckle-tracking echocardiography showed a strong global longitudinal strain correlation (r = 0.793), but limits of agreement spanned 8.3 percentage points, sufficient to misclassify individual patients.
Authors
Loading...
Caution against GLS for individual classification due to wide limits of agreement; leaves open utility pending larger validation.
Effect estimate: r = 0.793
p-value: p=<0.001
Reanalysis of segmental strain data confirms statistical robustness of intermodality differences, but wide limits of agreement between FT-CMR and 2D-STE mean the modalities are not interchangeable for individual patient tracking.
Malik et al. (2026) conducted a letter in Chronic ischemic heart disease with reduced ejection fraction (n=55). Feature-tracking cardiac magnetic resonance (FT-CMR) vs. 2D speckle-tracking echocardiography (2D-STE) was evaluated on Global longitudinal strain (GLS) correlation (r = 0.793, p=<0.001). Feature-tracking cardiac magnetic resonance and 2D speckle-tracking echocardiography showed a strong global longitudinal strain correlation (r = 0.793), but limits of agreement spanned 8.3 percentage points, sufficient to misclassify individual patients.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: