Skip to main content

Table 2 Statistical evaluation of different methods of right ventricular volume quantification

From: Quantification of right ventricular volume in dogs: a comparative study between three-dimensional echocardiography and computed tomography with the reference method magnetic resonance imaging

  

Group

Correlation

Bland-Altman analysis

Variable

Techniques compared

Comparison

R

P value

Bias

SD

 

CMRIvs 3DE

<0.0001a

0.96

< 0.0001a

22.09

3.33

EDV

CMRIvs CCT

0.0084

0.88

0.0009a

-5.02

4.73

 

CCT vs 3DE

<0.0001a

0.80

0.0052

27.11

5.69

 

CMRIvs 3DE

<0.0001a

0.82

0.0038a

15.07

3.94

ESV

CMRIvs CCT

0.0128a

0.93

0.0001a

-3.9

3.98

 

CCT vs 3DE

<0.0001a

0.88

0.0008a

18.97

5.67

 

CMRIvs 3DE

<0.0001a

0.20

0.5784

7.05

3.11

SV

CMRIvs CCT

0.1896

0.18

0.6130

-1.11

2.47

 

CCT vs 3DE

<0.0001a

0.10

0.7763

8.16

3.34

 

CMRIvs 3DE

0.0045a

0.68

0.0289a

-7.34

6.17

EF

CMRIvs CCT

0.2771

0.71

0.0217a

1.59

4.35

 

CCT vs 3DE

0.0015a

0.72

0.0186a

-8.93

6.28

  1. Group comparison (GC), correlation coefficients and Bland-Altman analysis (bias and standard deviation [SD]) for values of right ventricular function (end-diastolic volume = EDV, end-systolic volume = ESV, stroke volume = SV, ejection fraction = EF) obtained with cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMRI), cardiac computed tomography (CCT) and three-dimensional echocardiography (3DE) in 10 healthy anaesthetised beagles.
  2. aSignificant differences (p < 0.05).