ArticleJournal of electrocardiology
An evaluation of multiple algorithms for the measurement of the heart rate corrected JTpeak interval.
Article in Journal of electrocardiology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Translational Models and Tools to Reduce Clinical Trials and Improve Regulatory Decision Making for QTc and Proarrhythmia Risk (ICH E14/S7B Updates).Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 2021Review
- QT Assessment in Early Drug Development: The Long and the Short of It.International journal of molecular sciences · 2019Review
- Mechanistic Model-Informed Proarrhythmic Risk Assessment of Drugs: Review of the "CiPA" Initiative and Design of a Prospective Clinical Validation Study.Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Interest in the effects of drugs on the heart rate-corrected JTpeak (JTpc) interval from the body-surface ECG has spawned an increasing number of scientific investigations in the field of regulatory sciences, and more specifically in the context of the Comprehensive in vitro Proarrhythmia Assay (CiPA) initiative. We conducted a novel initiative to evaluate the role of automatic JTpc measurement technologies by comparing their ability to distinguish multi- from single-channel blocking drugs. A set of 5232 ECGs was shared by the FDA (through the Telemetric and Holter ECG Warehouse) with 3 ECG device companies (AMPS, Mortara, and Philips). We evaluated the differences in drug-concentration effects on these measurements between the commercial and the FDA technologies. We provide a description of the drug-induced placebo-corrected changes from baseline for dofetilide, quinidine, ranolazine, and verapamil, and discuss the various differences across all technologies. The results revealed only small differences between measurement technologies evaluated in this study. It also confirms that, in this dataset, the JTpc interval distinguishes between multi- and single-channel (hERG) blocking drugs when evaluating the effects of dofetilide, quinidine, ranolazine, and verapamil. However, in the case of quinidine and dofetilide, we noticed a poor consistency across technologies because of the lack of standard definitions for the location of the peak of the T-wave (T-apex) when the T-wave morphology is abnormal.
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.