Skip to main content

Table 2 Overview of statistical analysis

From: Quantification of left ventricular volumes and function in anesthetized beagles using real-time three-dimensional echocardiography: 4D-TomTec™ analysis versus 4D-AutLVQ™ analysis in comparison with cardiac magnetic resonance imaging

 

EF

EDV

EDV

ESV

 

Correlation

Bland Altman

GC

Correlation

Bland Altman

GC

Correlation

Bland Altman

GC

Correlation

 

Bland Altman

 

GC

 

r

P- value

Bias

SD

P-value

r

P- value

Bias

SD

P-value

r

P value

Bias

SD

P-value

R

P value

Bias

SD

P-value

Methods compared

                    

CMRI vs 4D-TomTec™

−0.24

0.5117

−8.08

9.99

0.1199

0.69

0.0273

7.17

3.49

0.0057

0.34

0.3311

6.18

3.68

0.0124

−0.24

0.5013

0.99

4.03

0.7072

CMRI vs 4D-AutLVQ™

0.18

0.1613

−6.22

11.45

0.0308

0.48

0.1644

5.36

4.70

0.0001

0.48

0.1644

4.79

4.86

0.0005

−0.24

0.5127

0.57

4.63

0.4570

4D-TomTec™ vs

0.61

0.0625

1.86

9.12

0.5355

0.80

0.0056

−1.81

3.26

0.1120

0.94

<0.0001

−1.39

2.54

0.1178

0.42

0.2220

−0.42

4.25

0.7598

4D-AutLVQ™

  1. Results of statistical comparisons between the different three-dimensional echocardiographic based volumetric analyzing software programs (4D-TomTec™, 4D-AutoLVQ™) and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMRI) used to calculate left ventricular end-diastolic (EDV) end-systolic (ESV) volume, stroke volume (SV) and ejection fraction (EF) in 10 healthy anesthetized beagles (GC Group comparison with paired T-Test, SD Standard Deviation, r Pearson regression coefficient). Bold letters illustrate significant differences (P < 0.05)
Back to article page

BMC Veterinary Research

ISSN: 1746-6148

Contact us