ArticleJournal of accident & emergency medicine1997
Assessment of the value of technician reporting of electrocardiographs in an accident and emergency department.
Article in Journal of accident & emergency medicine, 1997. 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.
- Thrombolysis in acute myocardial infarction: the safety and efficiency of treatment in the accident and emergency department.Journal of accident & emergency medicine · 1999Article
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
objectiveTo assess the value of a cardiac technicians' report on electrocardiographs (ECGs) in reducing serious errors of interpretation by senior house officers.
methodsA parallel study of interpretation of ECGs by senior house officers from 238 cases seen in an accident and emergency (A&E) department in a teaching hospital. 129 ECGs were reported by a cardiac technician at the time of recording and before the senior house officer wrote a report, and 109 were reported only by the senior house officers. Misinterpretations by doctors and technicians were graded by a consultant cardiologist on a four point scale and compared in the two groups. Serious errors (grade 4) were defined as those which potentially affected immediate management.
resultsThe number of grade 4 errors of interpretation of ECGs by A&E senior house officers was reduced by 59% when there was a prior technical report (mean (SD), 18(17)% v 6 (7%); Fisher's exact test P < 0.05).
conclusionsWhen cardiac technicians provide a report on an ECG at the time of its recording, serious errors of interpretation by senior house officers are reduced.
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.