PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
January 1, 2013Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance1,524 citationsOpen Access

Standardized image interpretation and post processing in cardiovascular magnetic resonance: Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance (SCMR) Board of Trustees Task Force on Standardized Post Processing

JSJeanette Schulz‐MengerDBDavid A. BluemkeJBJens Bremerich

Key Points

  • This document aims to establish consensus standards for interpreting and processing cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) images to improve diagnosis and report quality.
  • Developed by the Task Force for Post-Processing of SCMR
  • Updated original recommendations from 2013
  • Discussed pitfalls of CMR image analysis
  • Established requirements for qualitative and quantitative evaluation of CMR images
  • Outlined standardized post-processing techniques
  • Highlighted the need for agreement to improve reproducibility of CMR reports

Abstract

With mounting data on its accuracy and prognostic value, cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) is becoming an increasingly important diagnostic tool with growing utility in clinical routine. Given its versatility and wide range of quantitative parameters, however, agreement on specific standards for the interpretation and post-processing of CMR studies is required to ensure consistent quality and reproducibility of CMR reports. This document addresses this need by providing consensus recommendations developed by the Task Force for Post-Processing of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance (SCMR). The aim of the Task Force is to recommend requirements and standards for image interpretation and post-processing enabling qualitative and quantitative evaluation of CMR images. Furthermore, pitfalls of CMR image analysis are discussed where appropriate. It is an update of the original recommendations published 2013.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Schulz‐Menger et al. (2013) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69a1a8a9aa2c73b01c0ae6e0https://doi.org/10.1186/1532-429x-15-35
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Standardized cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) protocols 2013 update2013 · 743 citations
  2. 2Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance (SCMR) expert consensus for CMR imaging endpoints in clinical research: part I - analytical validation and clinical qualification2018 · 158 citations
  3. 3Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance guidelines for reporting cardiovascular magnetic resonance examinations2009 · 210 citations
  4. 4SCMR Expert Consensus Statement on Quantitative Myocardial Perfusion Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance Imaging2025 · 23 citations
  5. 5Enhancing Image Quality in Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance: The Impact of Patient Preparation and Scan Protocol Adjustments2025