ArticleJournal of electrocardiology
Non-conscious detection of ST-segment elevation during physician ECG interpretation.
Article in Journal of electrocardiology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
objectiveTo investigate errors in the assessment of ST-elevation (STEs) myocardial infarctions on ECGs to determine if non-conscious processes successfully detect missed STEs, as evidenced by changes in how long and often physicians look at leads with STEs. MATERIALS AND
methodEight experienced physicians interpreted 90 ECGs (45 STEs, 45 Normal) while eye movements were recorded. Physicians marked consciously recognized or considered STEs. No clinical context was provided.
resultsPhysicians missed 18% of STEs. Eye-tracking showed longer (P = 0.02), more frequent (P = 0.02), and increased transitions (P = 0.02) to "missed" STE leads compared to Normal ECG leads. DISCUSSION: Non-conscious detection of STEs, including inter‑lead relationships, despite a lack of conscious recognition, suggests a sophisticated mechanism of wholistic detection, including culprit lesion sites by non-conscious processes.
conclusionNon-conscious detection of STEs supports non-conscious detection processing in medicine leading to more success than can be tracked by conscious report. Eye-tracking could enhance ECG interpretation and reduce diagnostic errors.
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.