Improving the quality of preclinical research echocardiography: Observations, training, and guidelines for measurement

Informal training in preclinical research may be a contributor to the poor reproducibility of preclinical cardiology research and low rates of translation cor assessment and validated by autopsy weight. After the initial observation, a structured formal training program was introduced, and accuracy and reproducibility were reevaluated. Mean absolute percentage error for expert-calculated LV mass was 6 ± 4% compared with autopsy LV mass and 25 ± 21% for participants before training. Standardized formal training improved participant mean absolute percentage error by ~30% relative to expert-calculated LV mass (P < 0.001). Participants initially categorized with high-range error (25–45%) improved to lowmoderate error ranges (<15–25%). This report reveals an example of technical skill training insufficiency likely endemic to preclinical research and provides validated guidelines for echocardiographic measurement for adaptation to formalized in-training programs. NEW & NOTEWORTHY The informal training common to academic/ research institutions may be a contributor to the relatively poor reproducibility observed for preclinical cardiac research. In our observation of echocardiography analysis in murine models, we present evidence of moderate interobserver variability in standard preclinical research practice at an Australian heart research institute. These observations give rise to our recommendations for practical guidelines for echocardiography analysis in an adaptable approach to general preclinical research skill training.