ArticleSaudi medical journal2019
Evaluation of the diagnostic accuracy of smartphone electrocardiogram recorder compared to standard 12 lead electrocardiography in hospital settings.
Article in Saudi medical journal, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate Smartphone-based Electrocardiogram Recorders (S-ECG-R) diagnostic accuracy compared to standard 12 lead ECG.
methodsA cross-sectional comparative study was conducted in a tertiary cardiac center in Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia from December 2017 to February 2018. A total of 403 patients underwent both standard 12 leads ECG and S-ECG-R recordings in the same time. All recordings were checked initially by an electrophysiologist to confirm the accurate diagnosis. Then, the 806 recordings were randomly distributed among 6 certified cardiologists to interpret the rhythms and to evaluate rhythms quality.
resultsIn this study 211 (52%) males and 192 (48%) females were included, with a mean age of 52±18 years. Of the included rhythms,149 (37%) were abnormal. The majority of which were atrial fibrillation 46 (11%), sinus tachycardia 35 (9%) and premature ventricular contractions 33 (8%). Analysis revealed an overall similar diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of S-ECG-R to the standard 12 lead ECG recording, sensitivity (97.3% versus (vs) 98%) and specificity (99.6% vs. 99.6%). However, cardiologists were more confident during interpreting standard ECG recordings in 91% of the recordings while in 71% of S-ECG-R recordings. Conclusion: The ECG rhythms produced by smartphone accessory have a good diagnostic accuracy in diagnosing arrhythmias. The utility of using S-ECG-R for out-patient is to be determined.
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.