ArticleBMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation2021
Prevalence of abnormal and borderline electrocardiogram changes in 13, 079 Chinese amateur marathon runners.
Article in BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Frequency and Prognostic Significance of T-wave Inversions in Athletes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Sports medicine - open · 2026Pooled it
- The International Criteria for Electrocardiogram Interpretation in Athletes: Common Pitfalls and Future Directions.Cardiac electrophysiology clinics · 2024Review
- Hippocampal Subfield Volumes in Amateur Marathon Runners.Medicine and science in sports and exercise · 2023Article
- Evaluation of the electrocardiogram RVJournal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) · 2023Article
- The International Criteria for Electrocardiogram Interpretation in Athletes: Common Pitfalls and Future Directions.Cardiology clinics · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG) has been adopted as an important component of preparticipation cardiovascular screening. However, there are still controversies in the screening and few studies with a large sample size have reported the results of ECGs of marathon runners. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to assess the prevalence of normal, borderline, and abnormal ECG changes in marathon runners.
methodsThe 12-lead ECG data of 13,079 amateur marathon runners between the ages of 18 and 35 years were included for analysis. The prevalence of ECG abnormalities among different gender groups was compared with chi-square tests.
resultsIn terms of training-related changes, sinus bradycardia, sinus arrhythmia, and left ventricular high voltage were found in approximately 15, 5, and 3.28% of the participants, respectively. The incidence of right axis deviation in the marathon runners was 1.78%, which was slightly higher than the incidence of left axis deviation (0.88%). No more than 0.1% of the amateur marathon runners exhibited ST-segment depression, T wave inversion (TWI), premature ventricular contraction, pathologic Q waves, and prolonged QT interval.
conclusionsTraining-related ECG changes, including sinus bradycardia, sinus arrhythmia, and left ventricular high voltage, were common in amateur marathon runners. Most abnormal ECG changes, including ST-segment depression, TWI, premature ventricular contraction, pathologic Q waves, and prolonged QT interval, were infrequently found in amateur marathon runners. The data also suggested Chinese amateur marathon runners may have a relatively lower prevalence of ECG abnormalities than black and white runners.
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.