ArticlePloS one2017
Validation of automatic measurement of QT interval variability.
Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
- Confirmation of the Cardiac Safety of PGFClinical pharmacology in drug development · 2018Trial
- Intra-subject covariates of QT variability indices: influence of ECG noise.Frontiers in physiology · 2026Article
- Normal Values of QT Variability in 10-s Electrocardiograms for all Ages.Frontiers in physiology · 2019Article
- Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIncreased variability of beat-to-beat QT-interval durations on the electrocardiogram (ECG) has been associated with increased risk for fatal and non-fatal cardiac events. However, techniques for the measurement of QT variability (QTV) have not been validated since a gold standard is not available. In this study, we propose a validation method and illustrate its use for the validation of two automatic QTV measurement techniques.
methodsOur method generates artificial standard 12-lead ECGs based on the averaged P-QRS-T complexes from a variety of existing ECG signals, with simulated intrinsic (QT interval) and extrinsic (noise, baseline wander, signal length) variations. We quantified QTV by a commonly used measure, short-term QT variability (STV). Using 28,800 simulated ECGs, we assessed the performance of a conventional QTV measurement algorithm, resembling a manual QTV measurement approach, and a more advanced algorithm based on fiducial segment averaging (FSA).
resultsThe results for the conventional algorithm show considerable median absolute differences between the simulated and estimated STV. For the highest noise level, median differences were 4-6 ms in the absence of QTV. Increasing signal length generally yields more accurate STV estimates, but the difference in performance between 30 or 60 beats is small. The FSA algorithm proved to be very accurate, with most median absolute differences less than 0.5 ms, even for the highest levels of disturbance.
conclusionsArtificially constructed ECGs with a variety of disturbances allow validation of QTV measurement procedures. The FSA algorithm provides highly accurate STV estimates under varying signal conditions, and performs much better than traditional beat-by-beat analysis. The fully automatic operation of the FSA algorithm enables STV measurement in large sets of ECGs.
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.