ArticleCureus2025
Dilemma of Finding the Most Useful QTc Formula: A Retrospective Analysis of South-East London.
Article in Cureus, 2025. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAccurate measurement of the corrected QT (QTc) interval is crucial for assessing the risk of arrhythmias. Various formulas, including Bazett's, Fridericia's, Framingham's, and Hodges', are used to calculate QTc, but discrepancies between them can lead to clinical misclassification.
objectivesThis study aimed to compare the performance of different QTc formulas and identify the most reliable method for clinical practice.
methodsA retrospective analysis was conducted on 200 type 2 diabetic patients from South-East London. QT and RR intervals were measured to calculate QTc values. Due to the non-normal distribution of QTc values (Shapiro-Wilk test, p < 0.05), non-parametric statistical methods were employed, including the Friedman test and pairwise Wilcoxon signed-rank tests, to assess differences between QTc formulas.
resultsThe mean QTc values differed significantly between formulas, with Bazett's formula producing higher values (445 ± 30 ms) compared to Fridericia's (426 ± 29 ms), Framingham's (424 ± 28 ms), and Hodges' (428 ± 29 ms) formulas. The Friedman test confirmed significant variation across formulas (χ²(3) = 218.86, p < 0.001). Fridericia's formula demonstrated consistent performance and lower variability compared to other formulas.
conclusionThis study highlights the importance of selecting an appropriate QTc correction formula. Fridericia's formula may be a more reliable choice for accurate QTc interval measurement in clinical practice, particularly in patients with varying heart rates.
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.