ArticleClinical cardiology2024
Comparison of Standard and Prone-Position Electrocardiograms in COVID-19 Patients With Pulmonary Complications: Correlations and Implications.
Article in Clinical cardiology, 2024. 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.
- Clinical Implication of Prone Position Electrocardiograms in Patients With COVID-19.Clinical cardiology · 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPrevious research highlighted variability in electrocardiogram (ECG) readings across patient positions, particularly in the context of COVID-19 patients with pulmonary complications requiring prone positioning as part of the treatment.
objectiveThis study aimed to elucidate the effects of prone positioning on ECG parameters and explore its association with the severity of COVID-19.
methodsA prospective cohort study involved 60 patients diagnosed with COVID-19 and presenting pulmonary complications. ECGs were recorded in both supine and prone positions, and analyzed for various parameters including heart rate, QRS axis, and QTc interval. Clinical severity was assessed using APACHE II scores and SpO
resultsProne positioning led to an increase in heart rate (mean difference: 2.100, 95% CI: 0.471-3.729, p = 0.012), with minor shifts in the QRS axis. Heart rate and QRS axis demonstrated strong positive correlations between positions, with Pearson's correlation coefficients of 0.927 and 0.894, respectively. The study also found a significant association between prolonged QTc intervals in the prone position and elevated APACHE II scores, with a relative risk of 10.75 (95% CI: 1.82-63.64, p = 0.008).
conclusionsThe prone positioning caused minor yet significant changes in heart rate and QRS axis. The correlation of prolonged QTc intervals in the prone position with higher APACHE II scores suggests the prognostic relevance of prone ECG in COVID-19 patients. However, further research is needed to fully understand the clinical implications and mechanisms of these findings.
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.