Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Background: Subjective assessment of right ventricular (RV) function by neonatal echocardiography lacks validation. Incorrect diagnostic assignment in patients with suspected pulmonary hypertension (PH) may lead to unnecessary treatment or missed treatment opportunities.
Methods: Six evaluators (experts [n = 3], novice [n = 3]) were asked to independently rate RV characteristics (global function, dilation, and septal flattening) based on standardized echocardiography images. We randomly selected 60 infants, ≥35 weeks gestation at birth, of whom 30 were clinically unwell with acute pulmonary hypertension (aPH) and 30 were healthy controls. aPH was defined by echocardiography presence of right-left shunting across transitional shunts or elevated right ventricular systolic pressure as estimated by the magnitude of the regurgitant jet across the tricuspid valve with impaired oxygenation. Inter-rater comparative evaluation within groups and between groups was performed using Kappa statistics.
Results: Global agreement between evaluators for subjective assessment of RV function (0.3 [0.03], P < 0.001), size (0.14 [0.02], P < 0.001), and septal flattening (0.2 [0.02], P < 0.001) was uniformly poor. Agreement in RV function assessment was marginally better for both expert (0.32 [0.08], P < 0.001 vs 0.13 [0.081], and P < 0.001) and novice (0.4 [0.08], P < 0.001 vs 0.06 [0.07], and P < 0.001) evaluators. Overall, the diagnosis of aPH vs control was misclassified in 18% of cases.
Conclusion: This study demonstrated significant variability in qualitative assessment of RV size and function by trained evaluators, regardless of level of expertise attained. The reliability of objective measures of RV hemodynamics requires prospective evaluation.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6685067 | PMC |
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/echo.14409 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!