ReviewCurrent treatment options in cardiovascular medicine2018
Assessment of the QT Interval in Athletes: Red Flags and Pitfalls.
Review in Current treatment options in cardiovascular medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purpose of reviewPre-participation athlete screening has led to the referral of asymptomatic athletes with a prolonged QT interval warranting their evaluation for long QT syndrome (LQTS). Establishing a diagnosis of LQTS can be difficult, particularly in asymptomatic athletes presenting with a prolonged QTc < 500 ms. This review examines the evaluatory pathway to ascertain the common pitfalls leading to mis- or overdiagnosis. We discuss the advanced ECG-based tools and consider their application in the diagnostic process. RECENT
findingsCritical analysis of the ECG, symptom, and pedigree analysis has established value but relies on experienced interpretation. Protocolisation of the former has effectively reduced error. Exercise recovery ECG testing has demonstrated diagnostic value and provocation testing, reliant on QT hysteresis in LQTS, have shown reasonable sensitivity. Although it is becoming more established in experienced centres, its diagnostic value relies on effective risk stratification and subject selection. LQTS is a rare condition and the precision of any available test is greatly diluted if pre-test probability is low. Clinical and familial evaluation and exercise ECG testing are the foundation of the evaluatory process following referral. Adjunctive tests may have high sensitivity for LQTS but rely on high pre-test probability. Several pitfalls have been identified that can lead to misdiagnosis and thus informed evaluation at an experienced specialist centre is appropriate.
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.