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

Journal Abstract Search

158 related items for PubMed ID: 2233377

  • 21. Common errors in computer electrocardiogram interpretation.
    Guglin ME, Thatai D.
    Int J Cardiol; 2006 Jan 13; 106(2):232-7. PubMed ID: 16321696
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 22. Reference standards for software evaluation.
    Michaelis J, Wellek S, Willems JL.
    Methods Inf Med; 1990 Sep 13; 29(4):289-97. PubMed ID: 2233375
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 23. Value of scatter-graphs for the assessment of ECG computer measurement results.
    Morlet D, Rubel P, Willems JL.
    Methods Inf Med; 1990 Sep 13; 29(4):413-23. PubMed ID: 2233390
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 24. The emergency department versus the computer: which is the better electrocardiographer?
    Snyder CS, Fenrich AL, Friedman RA, Macias C, O'Reilly K, Kertesz NJ.
    Pediatr Cardiol; 2003 Sep 13; 24(4):364-8. PubMed ID: 12457259
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 25. Do Medical Practitioners Trust Automated Interpretation of Electrocardiograms?
    Delrot C, Bouzillé G, Calafiore M, Rochoy M, Legrand B, Ficheur G, Chazard E.
    Stud Health Technol Inform; 2019 Aug 21; 264():536-540. PubMed ID: 31437981
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 26. Canadian Colloquium on Computer-Assisted Interpretation of Electrocardiograms. IV. Suggested minimal performance requirements and methods of performance evaluation for computer ECG analysis programs.
    Helppi RR, Unite V, Wolf HK.
    Can Med Assoc J; 1973 May 19; 108(10):1251-9. PubMed ID: 4574248
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 27. Evaluation of pediatric electrocardiogram diagnosis of ventricular hypertrophy by computer program compared with cardiologists.
    Hamilton RM, Houston AB, McLeod K, Macfarlane PW.
    Pediatr Cardiol; 2005 May 19; 26(4):373-8. PubMed ID: 15654572
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 28. New mathematical statistical methods for detecting correct echocardiographic (ECG) and vectorcardiographic (VCG) diagnosis criteria by computerization. I. The determination of the upper (Lu) and low (Ll) limits for VCG amplitudes. The multivariate analysis.
    Arsenescu G, Văduva I, Cherciu M, Danciu V, Ghinescu R, Săbău M, Avrigean V, Arsenescu I, Mitrea I, Badiu G.
    Physiologie; 1983 May 19; 20(3):205-11. PubMed ID: 6417700
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 29. The coming of age of computerized ECG processing: can it replace the cardiologist in epidemiological studies and clinical trials?
    Kors JA, van Herpen G.
    Stud Health Technol Inform; 2001 May 19; 84(Pt 2):1161-7. PubMed ID: 11604912
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 30. Linear affine transformations between 3-lead (Frank XYZ leads) vectorcardiogram and 12-lead electrocardiogram signals.
    Dawson D, Yang H, Malshe M, Bukkapatnam ST, Benjamin B, Komanduri R.
    J Electrocardiol; 2009 May 19; 42(6):622-30. PubMed ID: 19608193
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 31. Accuracy of electrocardiogram interpretation by cardiologists in the setting of incorrect computer analysis.
    Anh D, Krishnan S, Bogun F.
    J Electrocardiol; 2006 Jul 19; 39(3):343-5. PubMed ID: 16777525
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 32. Diagnostic ECG classification based on neural networks.
    Bortolan G, Willems JL.
    J Electrocardiol; 1993 Jul 19; 26 Suppl():75-9. PubMed ID: 8189152
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 33. Assessment of diagnostic ECG results using information and decision theory. Results from the CSE diagnostic study.
    Willems JL.
    J Electrocardiol; 1992 Jul 19; 25 Suppl():120-5. PubMed ID: 1297677
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 34. Recommendations for measurement standards in quantitative electrocardiography. The CSE Working Party.
    Eur Heart J; 1985 Oct 19; 6(10):815-25. PubMed ID: 4076195
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 35.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 36. Computer-Interpreted Electrocardiograms: Benefits and Limitations.
    Schläpfer J, Wellens HJ.
    J Am Coll Cardiol; 2017 Aug 29; 70(9):1183-1192. PubMed ID: 28838369
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 37. Comparison of multigroup logistic and linear discriminant ECG and VCG classification.
    Willems JL, Lesaffre E.
    J Electrocardiol; 1987 Apr 29; 20(2):83-92. PubMed ID: 2955068
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 38. Comparative accuracy of automated computer analysis versus physicans in training in the interpretation of electrocardiograms.
    Sekiguchi K, Kanda T, Osada M, Tsunoda Y, Kodajima N, Fukumura Y, Suzuki T, Kobayashi I.
    J Med; 1999 Apr 29; 30(1-2):75-81. PubMed ID: 10515243
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 39. A review of computer ECG analysis: time to evaluate and standardize.
    Willems JL.
    Crit Rev Med Inform; 1986 Apr 29; 1(2):165-207. PubMed ID: 3333022
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 40. Automated serial ECG comparison improves computerized interpretation of 12-lead ECG.
    Gregg RE, Deluca DC, Chien CH, Helfenbein ED, Ariet M.
    J Electrocardiol; 2012 Apr 29; 45(6):561-5. PubMed ID: 22995382
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

    Page: [Previous] [Next] [New Search]
    of 8.