These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: [Comparison of 3 ECG computer programs with interpretation by physicians].
    Author: Saner H, Lindeland A, Scallen R, Paule W, Lange HW, Gobel FL.
    Journal: Schweiz Med Wochenschr; 1987 Jul 07; 117(27-28):1035-9. PubMed ID: 3303319.
    Abstract:
    Three ECG computer programs-Hewlett Packard analog program (HP), Telemed analog program (T) and Marquette 12 SL digital program (MAC)-were evaluated and their accuracy of ECG reading compared with the reading of 4 experienced interpreters on 140 ECGs of patients with various clinical abnormalities. Major disagreement with effect on patient management, and minor disagreement were defined at a joint session with a senior (consensus). The computers identified all normal ECGs correctly (sensitivity 100%). The percentage of major agreements (full agreements and minor disagreements) between consensus and computer was 79% for HP, 90% for T and 93% for MAC. The number of disagreements varied widely between readers and in relation to the different computers. Major problems for the computers were the interpretation of rhythm disturbances and the diagnosis of myocardial infarction, T-wave changes and ventricular hypertrophy: major diagnoses missed by the readers were first degree AV block, QT prolongation, and myocardial infarction. Although there was a considerable difference of accuracy between the 3 computer systems, all of them are sufficiently accurate to be useful to most clinicians. However, every ECG should be over-read by a physician, particularly if a clinical decision is based on the ECG diagnosis.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]