ArticleJAMA network open2024
Validation of a Handheld 6-Lead Device for QT Interval Monitoring in Resource-Limited Settings.
Article in JAMA network open, 2024. 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.
- Annual assessment of ECG intervals in patients with myotonic dystrophy type 1 using a mobile 6‑lead ECG device: TeleCheck-DM1.International journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature · 2026Article
- Position-wise comparison of handheld 6-lead ECG versus the standard 12-lead ECG in patients with arrhythmia: comparative study.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2026Article
- Optimizing single-lead ECG axis for AI-based detection of myocardial diseases.NPJ cardiovascular health · 2026Article
- Reimagining atrial fibrillation screening beyond age-based thresholds using AI.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Validation of a novel semi-automated ECG quantification tool, applied to a cardio-oncology : Semi-automated ECG Tool applied to cardio-oncology.Cardio-oncology (London, England) · 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Importance: Rifampin-resistant tuberculosis treatment regimens require electrocardiographic (ECG) monitoring due to the use of multiple QTc-prolonging agents. Formal 12-lead ECG devices represent a significant burden in resource-constrained clinics worldwide and a potential barrier to treatment scale-up in some settings. Objective: To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of a handheld 6-lead ECG device within resource-constrained clinics. Design, Setting, and Participants: This diagnostic study was performed within a multicenter, pragmatic (broad eligibility criteria with no exclusions for randomized participants), phase 3 rifampin-resistant tuberculosis treatment trial (BEAT Tuberculosis [Building Evidence for Advancing New Treatment for Tuberculosis]) in South Africa. A total of 192 consecutive trial participants were assessed, and 191 were recruited for this substudy between January 21, 2021, and March 27, 2023. A low proportion (3 of 432 [0.7%]) of all screened trial participants were excluded due to a QTc interval greater than 450 milliseconds. Triplicate reference standard 12-lead ECG results were human calibrated with readers blinded to 6-lead ECG results. Main Outcomes and Measures: Diagnostic accuracy, repeatability, and feasibility of a 6-lead ECG device. Results: A total of 191 participants (median age, 36 years [IQR, 28-45 years]; 81 female participants [42.4%]; 91 participants [47.6%] living with HIV) with a median of 4 clinic visits (IQR, 3-4 visits) contributed 2070 and 2015 12-lead and 6-lead ECG assessments, respectively. Across 170 participants attending 489 total clinic visits where valid triplicate QTc measurements were available for both devices, the mean 12-lead QTc measurement was 418 milliseconds (range, 321-519 milliseconds), and the mean 6-lead QTc measurement was 422 milliseconds (range, 288-574 milliseconds; proportion of variation explained, R2 = 0.4; P < .001). At a QTc interval threshold of 500 milliseconds, the 6-lead ECG device had a negative predictive value of 99.8% (95% CI, 98.8%-99.9%) and a positive predictive value of 16.7% (95% CI, 0.4%-64.1%). The normal expected range of within-individual variability of the 6-lead ECG device was high (±50.2 milliseconds [coefficient of variation, 6.0%]) relative to the 12-lead ECG device (±22.0 milliseconds [coefficient of variation, 2.7%]). The mean (SD) increase in the 12-lead QTc measurement during treatment was 10.1 (25.8) milliseconds, with 0.8% of clinic visits (4 of 489) having a QTc interval of 500 milliseconds or more. Conclusions and Relevance: This study suggests that simplified, handheld 6-lead ECG devices are effective triage tests that could reduce the need to perform 12-lead ECG monitoring in resource-constrained settings.
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.