In all most every ECG trace paper we get a computer generated report. But it's performance in interpretations are many times far from accurate. But it measures the intervals very reliability. What is your experience /observations?
My group will not use the automated computer generated ECG reports. Having used several leading manufacturers for over 35 years, oftentimes, the interpretations are not specific enough, miss criteria, or have challenges with separating artifact from reality. I will always choose an individual well trained in ECG/electrophysiology interpretation over a computer report.
Thank you very much Michael C Meyers for sharing your views and Practice. Probably all most none take the ECG interpretation generated by computer in their decision making. But the computer is quite good at measuring the intervals and the durations. Those can be used for diagnostic and research purposes. I am greatful for your sharing.
Fully agreed, computerized reports are misleading but intrval measurements can be relied upon with checks to be sure.
Fully agreed, computerized reports are misleading but intrval measurements can be relied upon with checks to be sure.
Dear Imran Hameed, thank you very much for your opinion. Allmost all physician will agree with you. But there is little concern about the non physician.
They get the opinion generated by the computer instantly and many a times become confused/worried. Thanks again.
Good question, computer is good in measuring PR and QRS intervals. QT measurement sometimes is misleading and needs to be recalculated especially in A.fib. rhythm or in the presence of U wave or baseline artifacts.
Dear Nawal Mohammed, thank for your very valuable opinion as regards QT interval. Personally it will be useful to me. As a matter of fact this is the measurement that we need most.
Personal gratitude to you.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Engineering
- Computer Engineering
- Computer