ReviewCurrent problems in cardiology2023
Predictors of ECG Interpretation Proficiency in Healthcare Professionals.
Review in Current problems in cardiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Navigating inhabited institutionalism: A framework for electrocardiogram workshops in teaching hospitals.African journal of emergency medicine : Revue africaine de la medecine d'urgence · 2026Article
- Multitask Artificial Intelligence-Based Electrocardiogram Tool for Preoperative Cardiac Testing in Noncardiac Surgery: Retrospective Cohort Study of Health Care Utilization and Costs.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence-enhanced ECG score for perioperative risk assessment in non-cardiac surgery.European heart journal. Digital health · 2026Article
- ABCD Framework-Based Stratified Analysis of ECG Interpretation Among Chinese Internal Medicine Residents: A Cross-Sectional Study.Advances in medical education and practice · 2026Article
- [Arrhythmias education-current considerations with a focus on ECG teaching].Herzschrittmachertherapie & Elektrophysiologie · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
21 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Accurate ECG interpretation is vital, but variations in skills exist among healthcare professionals. This study aims to identify factors contributing to ECG interpretation proficiency. Survey data and ECG interpretation test scores from participants in the EDUCATE Trial were analyzed to identify predictors of performance for 30 sequential 12-lead ECGs. Nonmodifiable factors (being a physician, clinical experience, patient care impact) and modifiable factors (weekly interpretation volume, training hours, expert supervision frequency) were analyzed. Bivariate and multivariate analyses were used to generate a Comprehensive Model (incorporating all factors) and Actionable Model (incorporating modifiable factors only). Among 1206 participants analyzed, there were 72 (6.0%) primary care physicians, 146 (12.1%) cardiology fellows-in-training, 353 (29.3%) resident physicians, 182 (15.1%) medical students, 84 (7.0%) advanced practice providers, 120 (9.9%) nurses, and 249 (20.7%) allied health professionals. Among them, 571 (47.3%) were physicians and 453 (37.6%) were nonphysicians. The average test score was 56.4% ± 17.2%. Bivariate analysis demonstrated significant associations between test scores and >10 weekly ECG interpretations, being a physician, >5 training hours, patient care impact, and expert supervision but not clinical experience. In the Comprehensive Model, independent associations were found with weekly interpretation volume (9.9 score increase; 95% CI, 7.9-11.8; P < 0.001), being a physician (9.0 score increase; 95% CI, 7.2-10.8; P < 0.001), and training hours (5.7 score increase; 95% CI, 3.7-7.6; P < 0.001). In the Actionable Model, scores were independently associated with weekly interpretation volume (12.0 score increase; 95% CI, 10.0-14.0; P < 0.001) and training hours (4.7 score increase; 95% CI, 2.6-6.7; P < 0.001). The Comprehensive and Actionable Models explained 18.7% and 12.3% of the variance in test scores, respectively. Predictors of ECG interpretation proficiency include nonmodifiable factors like physician status and modifiable factors such as training hours and weekly ECG interpretation volume.
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.