Has anyone looked at the accuracy of ECG interpretation with and without using automated interpretation? I am curious to know if if staff perform better with or without use of this software, are they more or less likely to record certain findings if no automated report? Finally, has anyone gotten any information on the accuracy of the various ECG interpretation software?
Thanks Alvar
Do you think that doctor's interpretation of ECGs would differ by much if the interpretation was removed from the ECG? While I agree totally with your comments, doctors seem to be uncomfortable when the interpretation is removed particularly if they are used to having it available.
Regards Richard
ECG is a versatile tool, but the experts capable of interpreting ECG reliably are not readily available always in many parts of the world. Automated ECG interpretation gives an instant guide to the health care professionals aiding clinical decisions. Even for the cardiologists, automated ECG interpretation can save time and energy in calculation of parameters like heart rate, PR interval, QT interval, QRS axis etc. However, in many times, the interpretation is wrong, and potentially misleading, so, it cannot be relied upon exclusively. Actually, to date, there is no substitution for the 'man behind machine'!
Automated interpretations act as a quick guide to where the problem could be and what it is(This is quite useful in emergencies). There are scenarios where Doctors miss key issues on the ECG only to be identified on the automated machine. That said, if the ECG tracing is not good enough, automated readings may give False positives in that sense. That is partly why the automated reading are non confirmatory and should always be cross checked!!
The issue of variability in interpretation depends on individual training!!
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Engineering
- Computer Engineering
- Computer