ArticlePediatric cardiology2025
pECGreview: Assessment of a Novel Tool to Evaluate the Accuracy of Pediatric ECG Interpretation Skills.
Article in Pediatric cardiology, 2025. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The skill of interpretation of the electrocardiogram (ECG) remains poor despite existing educational initiatives. We sought to evaluate the validity of using a subjective scoring system to assess the accuracy of ECG interpretations submitted by pediatric cardiology fellows, trainees, and faculty to the Pediatric ECG Review (pECGreview), a web-based ECG interpretation training program. We conducted a retrospective, cross-sectional study of responses submitted to pECGreview. ECG interpretations were assessed independently by four individuals with a range of experience. Accuracy was assessed using a 3-point scale: 100% for generally correct interpretations, 50% for over- or underdiagnosis of minor ECG abnormalities, and 0% for over- or underdiagnosis of major ECG abnormalities. Inter-rater agreement was assessed using expanded Bland-Altman plots, Pearson correlation coefficients, and Intraclass Correlation Coefficients (ICC). 1460 ECG interpretations by 192 participants were analyzed. 107 participants interpreted at least five ECGs. The mean accuracy score was 76.6 ± 13.7%. Participants were correct in 66.1 ± 5.1%, had minor over- or underdiagnosis in 21.5 ± 4.6% and major over- or underdiagnosis in 12.3 ± 3.9% of interpretations. Validation of agreement between evaluators demonstrated limits of agreement of 11.3%. Inter-rater agreement exhibited consistent patterns (all correlations ≥ 0.75). Absolute agreement was 0.74 (95% CI 0.69-0.80), and average measures agreement was 0.92 (95% CI 0.89-0.94). Accuracy score analysis of as few as five ECG interpretations submitted to pECGreview yielded good inter-rater reliability for assessing and ranking ECG interpretation skills in pediatric cardiology fellows in training.
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.