A comparison of both DENSE and feature tracking techniques with tagging for the cardiovascular magnetic resonance assessment of myocardial strain

Table 3 Comparisons of DENSE and feature tracking with HARP tagging in peak strain assessment

Software	Peak strain	P value ^a	ICC	Mean difference and 95% CI by Bland-Altman
DENSE	Ecc	0.663	0.778	0.155 (−6.166, 6.476)
	Err	0.072	0.032	7.366 (−64.89, 79.62)
	Ell	< 0.001	0.359	4.886 (−2.986, 12.76)
Tomtec	Ecc	< 0.001	0.507	3.532 (− 6.454, 13.52)
	Err	< 0.001	0.095	−16.52 (−84.49, 51.44)
	Ell	0.290	0.587	−0.2719 (−10.37, 9.829)
CIM	Ecc	< 0.001	0.571	−2.616 (−9.248, 4.016)
	Err	< 0.001	0.284	−33.6 (− 103.3, 36.15)
	Ell	< 0.001	0.527	−2.375 (− 10.42, 5.667)
Circle	Ecc	0.036	0.652	1.079 (−7.041, 9.2)
	Err	< 0.001	0.312	8.096 (−36.67, 52.86)
	Ell	0.049	0.408	−0.8713 (−11.41, 9.667)

Abbreviations: Ecc circumferential strain, Err radial strain, Ell longitudinal strain, ICC intraclass correlation coefficient, CI confidence interval
^aPaired t-test

ISSN: 1532-429X