ArticleFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2024
Prevalence and predictors of false positive QTc prolongation by the automated measurement.
Article in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 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.
- From Empirical to More Precise Correction: Multidimensional Performance Evaluation of QTc Formulas in a Cohort of Healthy Asian Youth.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2026Article
- QTcNet: a deep learning model for direct heart rate corrected QT interval estimation.Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2025Article
- Approach to prolonged QT interval in paediatric and neonatal patients.European journal of pediatrics · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Corrected QT (QTc) is an important electrocardiographic (ECG) interval. Physicians rely on automated QTc provided by ECG machines while the manual method is the recommended method. We sought to assess the prevalence and predictors of false positive QTc prolongation by the automated measurement. Methods and results: Consecutive ECGs were retrieved from the ECG database at King Khaled University Hospital. Manual QT was measured by a trained physician using the tangent method and was corrected for heart rate and QRS duration. Automated QTc measurement was recorded by the ECG machine. "Long QT (LQT)" was defined as QTc≥470 ms for males and ≥480 for females. False positive LQT was defined as LQT by automated QTc but not manual QTc. Pre-determined factors were included in a multivariate logistic regression to assess predictors of false positive LQT. A total of 567 ECGs were included in this study. Automated QTc was longer than manual QTc (440 ms [±35] vs. 417 ms [±35], respectively) which resulted in a high negative predictive value (NPV) (99%) and a low positive predictive value (PPV) (32%). Male gender and abnormal rhythm were found to be independently associated with false positive LQT (OR = 1.9 [95% 1.1-3.5], Conclusion: Automated QTc measurement is unreliable for detecting long QT, necessitating manual verification and further research to enhance its accuracy.
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.