ArticleWorld journal of cardiology2017
Validity of electrocardiographic criteria for increased left ventricular mass in young patients in the general population.
Article in World journal of cardiology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Risk Prediction for Sudden Cardiac Death in the General Population: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.International journal of public health · 2024Pooled it
- Paradoxical Trends in Hypertensive Heart Disease: Rising Burden in High-Sociodemographic-Index Regions Despite Healthcare Quality-An Age-Period-Cohort Analysis, 1992-2021.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2026Article
- Improving detection of cerebral small vessel disease aetiology in patients with isolated lobar intracerebral haemorrhage.Stroke and vascular neurology · 2023Article
- Evaluation of the Reliability of Electrocardiographic Criteria for Cardiac Hypertrophy Based on Echocardiographic Data.Acta medica Lituanic · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo investigate validity of electrocardiographic (ECG) criteria for left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) in young adults.
methodsRetrospectively, echocardiograms showing LVH and concomitant electrocardiograms were collected in patients 18 to 39 years old. A control group of patients without LVH was collected. Using echocardiogram as the gold standard, electrocardiograms were analyzed using common voltage criteria.
resultsStudy included 100 subjects (52% male, mean age = 28 ± 6.8 years, 96% Hispanic or African-American) with 50% LVH prevalence. Sensitivity and specificity for Sokolow-Lyon criteria were 24% (95%CI: 13.5%-38.4%) and 88% (95%CI: 74.9%-95%). For Cornell criteria, sensitivity was 32% (95%CI: 19.9%-46.8%) and specificity 98% (95%CI: 87.9%-99.8%). For R in aVL criteria, sensitivity was 12% (95%CI: 4.9%-25%) and specificity 100% (95%CI: 91.1%-100%).
conclusionIn young adults common ECG voltage criteria have low sensitivities and high specificities similar to other age groups. Low sensitivities preclude these ECG criteria from serving as effective screening tests.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.