BACKGROUND: Computer programs for the interpretation of electrocardiograms (ECGs) are now widely used. However, a systematic assessment of various computer programs for the interpretation of ECGs has not been performed. METHODS: We undertook a large international study to compare the performance of nine electrocardiographic computer programs with that of eight cardiologists in interpreting ECGs in 1220 clinically validated cases of various cardiac disorders. ECGs from the following groups were included in the sample: control patients (n = 382); patients with left ventricular hypertrophy (n = 183), right ventricular hypertrophy (n = 55), or biventricular hypertrophy (n = 53); patients with anterior myocardial infarction (n = 170), inferior myocardial infarction (n = 273), or combined myocardial infarction (n = 73); and patients with combined infarction and hypertrophy (n = 31). The interpretations of the computer programs and the cardiologists were compared with the clinical diagnoses made independently of the ECGs, and the computer interpretations were compared with those of the cardiologists. RESULTS: The percentage of ECGs correctly classified by the computer programs (median, 91.3 percent) was lower than that of the cardiologists (median, 96.0 percent; P less than 0.01). The median sensitivity of the computer programs was also significantly lower than that of the cardiologists in diagnosing left ventricular hypertrophy (56.6 percent vs. 63.9 percent, P less than 0.02), right ventricular hypertrophy (31.8 percent vs. 46.6 percent, P less than 0.01), anterior myocardial infarction (77.1 percent vs. 84.9 percent, P less than 0.001), and inferior myocardial infarction (58.8 percent vs. 71.7 percent, P less than 0.0001). The median total accuracy level (the percentage of correct classifications) was 6.6 percent lower for the computer programs (69.7 percent) than for the cardiologists (76.3 percent; P less than 0.001). However, the performance of the best programs nearly matched that of the most accurate cardiologists. CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows that some but not all computer programs for the interpretation of ECGs perform almost as well as cardiologists in identifying seven major cardiac disorders.
BACKGROUND: Computer programs for the interpretation of electrocardiograms (ECGs) are now widely used. However, a systematic assessment of various computer programs for the interpretation of ECGs has not been performed. METHODS: We undertook a large international study to compare the performance of nine electrocardiographic computer programs with that of eight cardiologists in interpreting ECGs in 1220 clinically validated cases of various cardiac disorders. ECGs from the following groups were included in the sample: control patients (n = 382); patients with left ventricular hypertrophy (n = 183), right ventricular hypertrophy (n = 55), or biventricular hypertrophy (n = 53); patients with anterior myocardial infarction (n = 170), inferior myocardial infarction (n = 273), or combined myocardial infarction (n = 73); and patients with combined infarction and hypertrophy (n = 31). The interpretations of the computer programs and the cardiologists were compared with the clinical diagnoses made independently of the ECGs, and the computer interpretations were compared with those of the cardiologists. RESULTS: The percentage of ECGs correctly classified by the computer programs (median, 91.3 percent) was lower than that of the cardiologists (median, 96.0 percent; P less than 0.01). The median sensitivity of the computer programs was also significantly lower than that of the cardiologists in diagnosing left ventricular hypertrophy (56.6 percent vs. 63.9 percent, P less than 0.02), right ventricular hypertrophy (31.8 percent vs. 46.6 percent, P less than 0.01), anterior myocardial infarction (77.1 percent vs. 84.9 percent, P less than 0.001), and inferior myocardial infarction (58.8 percent vs. 71.7 percent, P less than 0.0001). The median total accuracy level (the percentage of correct classifications) was 6.6 percent lower for the computer programs (69.7 percent) than for the cardiologists (76.3 percent; P less than 0.001). However, the performance of the best programs nearly matched that of the most accurate cardiologists. CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows that some but not all computer programs for the interpretation of ECGs perform almost as well as cardiologists in identifying seven major cardiac disorders.
Authors: M L Bots; P C Elwood; Y Nikitin; J T Salonen; A Freire de Concalves; D Inzitari; J Sivenius; A Trichopoulou; J Tuomilehto; P J Koudstaal; D E Grobbee Journal: J Epidemiol Community Health Date: 2002-02 Impact factor: 3.710
Authors: Nkechi E Azie; Gregory Adams; Borje Darpo; Steven F Francom; Emery C Polasek; Joy M Wisser; Joseph C Fleishaker Journal: Ann Noninvasive Electrocardiol Date: 2004-04 Impact factor: 1.468