4.5 Article

A meta-analysis of echocardiographic measurements of the left heart for the development of normative reference ranges in a large international cohort: the EchoNoRMAL study

期刊

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/ehjci/jet240

关键词

Echocardiography; Reference ranges; Meta-analysis

资金

  1. Heart Foundation of NZ
  2. University of Auckland
  3. Unitec Institute of Technology, NZ
  4. Fund for Scientific Research - Flanders (FWO) [G042703, G083810N]
  5. British Heart Foundation [PG/05/036]
  6. Heart of Birmingham Teaching Primary Care Trust
  7. National Health Service R&D funding (Primary Care Research Network-Central England)
  8. MRC [MC_PC_11004] Funding Source: UKRI
  9. Medical Research Council [MC_PC_11004] Funding Source: researchfish
  10. National Institute for Health Research [NF-SI-0611-10273] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To develop age-, sex-, and ethnic-appropriate normative reference ranges for standard echocardiographic measurements of the left heart by combining echocardiographic measurements obtained from adult volunteers without clinical cardiovascular disease or significant cardiovascular risk factors, from multiple studies around the world. The Echocardiographic Normal Ranges Meta-Analysis of the Left heart (EchoNoRMAL) collaboration was established and population-based data sets of echocardiographic measurements combined to perform an individual person data meta-analysis. Data from 43 studies were received, representing 51 222 subjects, of which 22 404 adults aged 1880 years were without clinical cardiovascular or renal disease, hypertension or diabetes. Quantile regression or an appropriate parametric regression method will be used to derive reference values at the 5th and 95th centile of each measurement against age. This unique data set represents a large, multi-ethnic cohort of subjects resident in a wide range of countries. The resultant reference ranges will have wide applicability for normative data based on age, sex, and ethnicity.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据