ArticleJournal of family medicine and primary care2026
Primary care and general physicians' electrocardiogram interpretation competence and readiness for emergency myocardial infarction management in Saudi Arabia.
Article in Journal of family medicine and primary care, 2026. 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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To provide the first nationwide assessment of licensed physicians' competence in electrocardiogram (ECG) interpretation and emergency myocardial infarction (MI) management in Saudi Arabia and to identify specialty-specific gaps that could inform targeted educational strategies. Methods: An analytical cross-sectional survey was conducted from September 11, 2025 to October 15, 2025 via Google Forms. Eligible participants included consultants, fellows, residents, and general physicians across cardiology, internal medicine, emergency medicine, family medicine, general surgery, anesthesia, and intensive care medicine. A validated, self-administered questionnaire captured demographics, ECG knowledge triggers, interpretation of seven key ECG findings, and prior workshop attendance. Each correct response was coded as 1/0, summed, and scaled to a 0-100 composite score. Data were analyzed in R (v4.3.2) using Kruskal-Wallis tests with Bonferroni-adjusted Dunn post-hoc comparisons ( Results: Of 364 respondents, 69.3% were general physicians and 61.8% had attended an ECG workshop. Cardiologists achieved the highest median interpretation scores, whereas general physicians and surgical specialties performed significantly lower ( Conclusions: Competency gaps in ECG interpretation and MI management remain substantial, particularly among general physicians. Mandatory ECG modules in residency programs, expansion of continuing medical education requirements, and tele-ECG over-read systems are urgently needed to standardize acute cardiac care and improve reperfusion timelines.
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.