ArticleEuropean heart journal. Digital health2024
Evaluating the impacts of digital ECG denoising on the interpretive capabilities of healthcare professionals.
Article in European heart journal. Digital health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- R-R Interval Histogram-Based Deep Learning for 3-Class Atrial Fibrillation Screening in Garment-Type Wearable Holter Electrocardiogram Monitoring: Algorithm Development and Validation Study.JMIR medical informatics · 2026Article
- Scalable screening for structural heart disease: promises from artificial intelligence-electrocardiogram tools.European heart journal. Digital health · 2025Article
- Preprocessing and Denoising Techniques for Electrocardiography and Magnetocardiography: A Review.Bioengineering (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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aims: Electrocardiogram (ECG) interpretation is an essential skill across multiple medical disciplines; yet, studies have consistently identified deficiencies in the interpretive performance of healthcare professionals linked to a variety of educational and technological factors. Despite the established correlation between noise interference and erroneous diagnoses, research evaluating the impacts of digital denoising software on clinical ECG interpretation proficiency is lacking. Methods and results: Forty-eight participants from a variety of medical professions and experience levels were prospectively recruited for this study. Participants' capabilities in classifying common cardiac rhythms were evaluated using a sequential blinded and semi-blinded interpretation protocol on a challenging set of single-lead ECG signals (42 × 10 s) pre- and post-denoising with robust, cloud-based ECG processing software. Participants' ECG rhythm interpretation performance was greatest when raw and denoised signals were viewed in a combined format that enabled comparative evaluation. The combined view resulted in a 4.9% increase in mean rhythm classification accuracy (raw: 75.7% ± 14.5% vs. combined: 80.6% ± 12.5%, Conclusion: Our findings have demonstrated that digital denoising software improves the efficacy of rhythm interpretation on single-lead ECGs, particularly when raw and denoised signals are provided in a combined viewing format, warranting further investigation into the impact of such technology on clinical decision-making and patient outcomes.
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.