Skip to main content

Table 3 Results of the Friedmann’s test to compare the different strain measurements in patients and healthy subjects, showing the adjusted significance level from the Dunn-Bonferoni post-hoc test (p) as well as the effect size (r) of the different comparisons

From: Myocardial strain analysis of the right ventricle: comparison of different cardiovascular magnetic resonance and echocardiographic techniques

Patients (n = 57)

p

r

SENC vs. STE

 SENC vs. STE-FWLS

0.049

0.11

 SENC vs. STE-GLS

1.000

/

FT vs. STE

 Endo-FT vs. STE -FWLS

< 0.001

0.18

 Myo-FT vs. STE-FWLS

0.059

/

 Endo-FT vs. STE-GLS

< 0.001

0.36

 Myo-FT vs. STE-GLS

< 0.001

0.28

SENC vs. FT

 SENC vs. Endo-FT

< 0.001

0.29

 SENC vs. Myo-FT

< 0.001

0.22

Healthy subjects (n = 17)

 SENC vs. FT

  

 SENC vs. Endo-FT

< 0.001

0.47

 SENC vs. Myo-FT

0.006

0.26

  1. Abbreviations: GLS Global longitudinal strain, FWLS Free wall longitudinal strain, STE Speckle tracking echocardiography, SENC Strain-encoding, FT Feature tracking, Endo-FT Subendocardial strain determined using FT, Myo-FT Midmyocardial strain determined using FT
Back to article page

Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance

ISSN: 1532-429X

Contact us