ArticleTherapeutic innovation & regulatory science2022
False Negative ECG Device Results May Increase the Risk of Adverse Events in Clinical Oncology Trials.
Article in Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Harnessing the Heart's Magnetic Field for Advanced Diagnostic Techniques.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSites participating in clinical trials may not have the expertise and infrastructure to accurately measure cardiac intervals on 12-lead ECGs and rely heavily on the automated ECG device generated results for clinical decision-making.
methodsUsing a dataset of over 260,000 ECGs collected in clinical oncology studies, we investigated the mean difference and the rate of false negative results between the digital ECG machine QTc and QRS measurements compared to those obtained by a centralized ECG core lab.
resultsThe mean differences between the core lab and the automated algorithm QTcF and QRS measurements were + 1.8 ± 16.0 ms and - 1.0 ± 8.8 ms, respectively. Among the ECGs with a centralized QTcF value > 450 or > 470 ms, 39.5% and 47.8% respectively had a device reported QTcF value ≤ 450 ms or ≤ 470 ms. Among the ECGs with a centrally measured QTcF > 500 ms, 55.8% had a device reported value ≤ 500 ms. Automated QTcF measurements failed to detect a QTcF increase > 60 ms for 53.9% of the ECGs identified by the core lab. Automated measurements also failed to detect QRS prolongation, though to a lesser extent than failures to detect QTc prolongation. Among the ECGs with a centrally measured QRS > 110 or 120 ms, 7.9% and 7.3% respectively had a device reported QRS value ≤ 110 ms or ≤ 120 ms.
conclusionRelying on automated measurements from ECG devices for patient inclusion and treatment (dis)continuation decisions poses a potential risk to patients participating in oncology studies.
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.