% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded. This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.
@ARTICLE{Sachpekidis:144523,
author = {C. Sachpekidis and V. Sachpekidis and A. Kopp-Schneider$^*$
and G. Arsos and E. Moralidis},
title = {{E}quilibrium radionuclide angiography: {I}ntra- and
inter-observer repeatability and reproducibility in the
assessment of cardiac systolic and diastolic function.},
journal = {Journal of nuclear cardiology},
volume = {28},
number = {4},
issn = {1532-6551},
address = {New York, NY},
publisher = {Springer},
reportid = {DKFZ-2019-01971},
pages = {1304-1314},
year = {2021},
note = {2021 Aug;28(4):1304-1314},
abstract = {This study aimed to assess intra- and inter-observer
agreement in assessing the systolic and diastolic function
with equilibrium radionuclide angiography (ERNA).Thirty-two
adults underwent baseline and repeat ERNA. An experienced
and a trainee operator analyzed the data by assigning
regions of interest manually, fully automatically, and
semi-automatically. The Bland-Altman statistic (mean ± 1.96
standard deviations of the differences) was used to assess
the repeatability (two different assessments of a single
acquisition) and reproducibility (assessments of two
different acquisitions).Using the semi-automated technique
the intraobserver repeatability and reproducibility of left
ventricular ejection fraction for the experienced physician
were - 0.1 ± 3.7 and 0.0 ± 3.8 and for the trainee 2.2
± 10.6 and 1.9 ± 8.4, respectively. The inter-observer
repeatability and reproducibility were - 1.8 ± 6.4 and
0.4 ± 9.0, respectively. Among the parameters of diastolic
function, the intraobserver repeatability and
reproducibility of the peak filling rate for the experienced
physician were - 0.0 ± 1.1 and - 0.1 ± 1.1 and for the
trainee 0.2 ± 3.5 and 0.4 ± 3.7, respectively. The
inter-observer repeatability and reproducibility were 0.3 ±
1.5 and 0.5 ± 4.0, respectively. Similar was the pattern
for the other diastolic indices. In all cases the limits of
agreement varied according to the quantification approach.A
good repeatability but a moderate reproducibility was found
in the assessment of the LVEF. Less good were the findings
in the assessment of diastolic function.},
cin = {C060},
ddc = {610},
cid = {I:(DE-He78)C060-20160331},
pnm = {313 - Krebsrisikofaktoren und Prävention (POF4-313)},
pid = {G:(DE-HGF)POF4-313},
typ = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
pubmed = {pmid:31385225},
doi = {10.1007/s12350-019-01830-9},
url = {https://inrepo02.dkfz.de/record/144523},
}