Skip to main content

Table 4 Lin’s concordance correlation coefficients to assess agreement between methods

From: Quantification of regurgitation in mitral valve prolapse with four-dimensional flow cardiovascular magnetic resonance

   Lin's concordance correlation coefficient 95%CI
2D-PISA vs. CMR RVol 0.851 (0.610 to 0.947)
RF 0.852 (0.589 to 0.952)
2D-PISA vs. 4DFind RVol 0.841 (0.586 to 0.944)
RF 0.865 (0.637 to 0.954)
2D-PISA vs. 4DFdir RVol 0.538 (0.047 to 0.820)
RF 0.331 (− 0.279 to 0.751)
CMR vs. 4DFind RVol 0.971 (0.924 to 0.989)
RF 0.922 (0.793 to 0.972)
CMR vs. 4DFdir RVol 0.862 (0.628 to 0.953)
RF 0.596 (0.054 to 0.867)
4DFind vs. 4DFdir RVol 0.670 (0.506 to 0.787)
RF 0.448 (0.151 to 0.671)
  1. 2D-PISA 2-dimensional transthoracic echocardiography derived proximal isovelocity surface area, CMR standard cardiac magnetic resonance, 4DFind 4-dimensional flow CMR indirect method, 4DFdir 4-dimensional flow CMR direct method, 95%CI 95% confidence interval