ArticleThe western journal of emergency medicine2024
Validity of Computer-interpreted "Normal" and "Otherwise Normal" ECG in Emergency Department Triage Patients.
Article in The western journal of emergency medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Underutilized Ocular Fundus in Emergency Departments: Current Progress and Future Prospect of Imaging and Artificial Intelligence for Patient Care.Ophthalmology science · 2026Review
- Artificial Intelligence Detection of Occlusive Myocardial Infarction from Electrocardiograms Interpreted as "Normal" by Conventional Algorithms.Journal of personalized medicine · 2025Article
- Article
- The ECG: old test, new possibilities.CJEM · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Chest pain is the second most common chief complaint for patients undergoing evaluation in emergency departments (ED) in the United States. The American Heart Association recommends immediate physician interpretation of all electrocardiograms (ECG) performed for adults with chest pain within 10 minutes to evaluate for the finding of ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). The ECG machines provide computerized interpretation of each ECG, potentially obviating the need for immediate physician analysis; however, the reliability of computer-interpreted findings of "normal" or "otherwise normal" ECG to rule out STEMI requiring immediate intervention in the ED is unknown. Methods: We performed a prospective cohort analysis of 2,275 ECGs performed in triage in the adult ED of a single academic medical center, comparing the computerized interpretations of "normal" and "otherwise normal" ECGs to those of attending cardiologists. ECGs were obtained with a GE MAC 5500 machine and interpreted using Marquette 12SL. Results: In our study population, a triage ECG with a computerized interpretation of "normal" or "otherwise normal" ECG had a negative predictive value of 100% for STEMI (one-sided, lower 97.5% confidence interval 99.6%). None of the studied patients with these ECG interpretations had a final diagnosis of STEMI, acute coronary syndrome, or other diagnosis requiring emergent cardiac catheterization. Conclusion: In our study population, ECG machine interpretations of "normal" or "otherwise normal" ECG excluded findings of STEMI. The ECGs with these computerized interpretations could safely wait for physician interpretation until the time of patient evaluation without delaying an acute STEMI diagnosis.
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.