ArticleThe Veterinary record2020
Comparison between smartphone electrocardiography and standard three-lead base apex electrocardiography in healthy horses.
Article in The Veterinary record, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Electrocardiographic recording in horses at rest: a concordance analysis of two methods.Veterinary research communications · 2026Article
- Technologies for equine welfare and performance monitoring under field conditions - Where do we stand?Equine veterinary journal · 2026Review
- Smartphone-based ECG assessment of heart rhythm at birth in healthy foals born after spontaneous or induced parturition: is there a potential difference?Veterinary research communications · 2024Article
- Preliminary study on heart response and locomotor parameters in Donkeys (Equus asinus) during exercise using fitness tracker (Equimetre).Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Evaluation of a smartphone electrocardiograph in healthy foals and comparison to standard base-apex electrocardiography.Veterinary research communications · 2024Article
- Article
- Comparison between a fitness tracker (EquimetreFrontiers in veterinary science · 2022Article
- 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
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCardiac arrhythmias are commonly auscultated during routine physical examinations in horses and determining the underlying electrical abnormality using an ECG is important. The most commonly used device is a three-lead base apex system (Televet), however few practitioners carry this for routine visits. With recognition of the utility of smartphone-based ECGs in humans, dogs and ruminants, the AliveCor single-lead bipolar smartphone-based ECG has gained popularity. The objective of this study was to determine if AliveCor and Televet ECG measurements were comparable in healthy horses using multiple observers.
methodsECGs were performed on 15 healthy horses simultaneously using the AliveCor and Televet.
resultsThere was very good to perfect interdevice and interobserver agreement for heart rate and RR interval measurement, and moderate-to-good interdevice and interobserver agreement for detection of non-pathological arrhythmias. Interdevice agreement for measurement of P-wave and QRS duration, QT, PR and T-peak to T-end interval was poor to fair. Interestingly, interobserver agreement for P-wave and QRS duration, QT, PR, and T-peak to T-end interval measurements was fair to good.
conclusionOverall, the AliveCor is comparable to the Televet for heart rate and RR measurement, and for the detection of non-pathogenic arrhythmias with acceptable agreement between observers.
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.