Scali, Maria Chiara (55929478400)Maria Chiara (55929478400)Scalide Azevedo Bellagamba, Clarissa Carmona (57194341124)Clarissa Carmona (57194341124)de Azevedo BellagambaCiampi, Quirino (6602299243)Quirino (6602299243)CiampiSimova, Iana (23391267500)Iana (23391267500)Simovade Castro e Silva Pretto, José Luis (6508318426)José Luis (6508318426)de Castro e Silva PrettoDjordjevic-Dikic, Ana (57003143600)Ana (57003143600)Djordjevic-DikicDodi, Claudio (6602478787)Claudio (6602478787)DodiCortigiani, Lauro (55663049600)Lauro (55663049600)CortigianiZagatina, Angela (22939399700)Angela (22939399700)ZagatinaTrambaiolo, Paolo (6602701604)Paolo (6602701604)TrambaioloTorres, Marco R. (7402581476)Marco R. (7402581476)TorresCitro, Rodolfo (15921921800)Rodolfo (15921921800)CitroColonna, Paolo (57221823607)Paolo (57221823607)ColonnaPaterni, Marco (7003660393)Marco (7003660393)PaterniPicano, Eugenio (7102408994)Eugenio (7102408994)Picano2025-06-122025-06-122017https://doi.org/10.1007/s10554-017-1167-2https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85019655870&doi=10.1007%2fs10554-017-1167-2&partnerID=40&md5=051bfb17c3fe0820cc11f16ef2a5fc7dhttps://remedy.med.bg.ac.rs/handle/123456789/6790The diffusion of smart-phones offers access to the best remote expertise in stress echo (SE). To evaluate the reliability of SE based on smart-phone filming and reading. A set of 20 SE video-clips were read in random sequence with a multiple choice six-answer test by ten readers from five different countries (Italy, Brazil, Serbia, Bulgaria, Russia) of the “SE2020” study network. The gold standard to assess accuracy was a core-lab expert reader in agreement with angiographic verification (0 = wrong, 1 = right). The same set of 20 SE studies were read, in random order and >2 months apart, on desktop Workstation and via smartphones by ten remote readers. Image quality was graded from 1 = poor but readable, to 3 = excellent. Kappa (k) statistics was used to assess intra- and inter-observer agreement. The image quality was comparable in desktop workstation vs. smartphone (2.0 ± 0.5 vs. 2.4 ± 0.7, p = NS). The average reading time per case was similar for desktop versus smartphone (90 ± 39 vs. 82 ± 54 s, p = NS). The overall diagnostic accuracy of the ten readers was similar for desktop workstation vs. smartphone (84 vs. 91%, p = NS). Intra-observer agreement (desktop vs. smartphone) was good (k = 0.81 ± 0.14). Inter-observer agreement was good and similar via desktop or smartphone (k = 0.69 vs. k = 0.72, p = NS). The diagnostic accuracy and consistency of SE reading among certified readers was high and similar via desktop workstation or via smartphone. © 2017, Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht.EchocardiographyStress echocardiographyWall motion