ArticleClinical cardiology2019
Predictive value of a fragmented QRS complex in diagnosing patients with myocardial ischemia.
Article in Clinical cardiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Application Value of QRS Wave Potential in Predicting Left Ventricular Remodeling and Adverse Cardiovascular Events in Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction After PCI.International journal of general medicine · 2026Article
- The utility of fragmented QRS in association with strain echocardiography in predicting significant coronary artery stenosis.Journal of cardiovascular and thoracic research · 2024Article
- Predicting efficacy of combined assessment with fragmented QRS and severely depressed heart rate variability on outcome of patients with acute myocardial infarction.Heart and vessels · 2022Article
- Article
- Retrospective analysis of time limit of QRS complex in the electrocardiogram and its clinical significance in patients with acute myocardial infarction.American journal of translational research · 2021Article
- Predictive value of a fragmented QRS complex in diagnosing patients with myocardial ischemia.Clinical cardiology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA fragmented QRS complex (fQRS) is caused by conduction abnormalities of the ventricle secondary to myocardial ischemia and/or scar in patients with myocardial infarction. However, the implications of the fQRS in the development of coronary artery disease with myocardial ischemia in those without a scar remain unknown.
methodsWe studied electrocardiograms (ECGs) obtained from 150 patients (60.5 ± 8.5 years, 102 men) with myocardial ischemia, which was confirmed by performing both, a nuclear exercise stress test and coronary angiography. We also studied ECGs obtained from 601 patients (58.5 ± 10.0 years, 315 men) who showed a negative nuclear exercise stress test (control group). Patients in whom the nuclear exercise stress test showed a myocardial scar were excluded.
resultsAn fQRS was more commonly observed in patients with myocardial ischemia (n = 48, 32.0%) than in the control group (n = 133, 22.1%) (P = 0.011). The sensitivity, specificity, positive, and negative predictive values of fQRS in diagnosing myocardial ischemia were 32.0, 77.9, 26.5, and 82.1%, respectively. The fQRS (odds ratio 1.580, 95% confidence interval 1.020-2.446, P = 0.040) was an independent predictor of myocardial ischemia after adjusting for age, sex, current smoking habits, ST-T changes on ECG, as well as histories of hypertension, diabetes, and dyslipidemia. Moreover, the fQRS showed an incremental prognostic value over conventional risk factors (χ
conclusionsThe fQRS is a moderately sensitive and independent predictor of myocardial ischemia.
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.