Skip to main content

Table 5 Summary of literature on MBF repeatability

From: Fully automated, inline quantification of myocardial blood flow with cardiovascular magnetic resonance: repeatability of measurements in healthy subjects

  Rest Stress MPR
  Author Year n T test r/ICC RC
(%)
CV
(%)
T test r/ICC RC
(%)
CV
(%)
T test r/ICC RC
(%)
CV
(%)
Immediate (intrastudy)
PET Nitzsche [30] 1996 15 0.33 0.99 33   0.16 0.97 13      
Kaufmann [14] 1999 21 ns   18   ns   25   ns   33  
Wyss [23] 2003 11 ns 0.77 21    0.77 27   ns 0.74 35  
Schindler [31] 2007 20   0.72 29    0.76 20      
Manabe [15] 2009 15 0.31   22   0.81   27   0.53   37  
Kitkungvan [18] 2017 120 0.93    11 0.74    10     
Ocneanu [19] 2017 12     21     15     
CMR Keitha [32] 2017 10    53 13         
This study    0.08 0.8 24 8 0.41 0.76 29 11     
Delayed (interstudy)
PET Nagamachi [16] 1996 30 ns 0.63 31   ns 0.69 18     20  
Schindler [31] 2007 20   0.75 30    0.71 23      
Sdringola [17] 2011 48 p < 0.05 0.68 35   ns 0.53 34   ns 0.47 38  
Johnson [24] 2015 50 0.46   41   0.13   34   0.29   34  
Kitkungvan [33] 2017 19 0.13     0.94    17 0.26    20
Kitkungvan [18] 2017 120 0.13    21 0.81    19     
CMR Jerosch-Herold [20] 2008 30 0.001   30   0.11   41      
Larghata [8] 2013 11 0.2   45 20 0.61   73 40 0.11   69 35
Likhite [21] 2016 10   0.77         0.88   
Keitha [32] 2017 10    61 16         
This study    0.8 0.74 32 11 0.12 0.72 33 12 0.25 0.44 36 13
  1. ns not significant (p value not reported), r Pearson correlation coefficient, RC reproducibility coefficient (% of mean), CV coefficient of variation
  2. aRepeatability data is given for single mid-ventricular slice, all other studies, data is for global myocardium, averaged from multiple slices. Where RC was not published, but sufficient data was provided, this has been calculated using 1.96*SD of difference. Similarly, all RC are given as % for ease of comparison