Why the study?
Manual ECG measurement involves inter-observer variability that limits clinical reproducibility, prompting the development of QRSense to standardize this process.
Does QRSense provide comparable measurement agreement and reproducibility to conventional manual measurement for ECG tracings?
Comparison
QRSense digital measurement vs conventional manual measurement
Design
Cross-sectional concordance study
Key result
QRSense demonstrated excellent agreement with manual measurement for QRS voltage (Lin's CCC 0.9527) and QRS duration (Lin's CCC 0.9221), with negligible mean bias.
Authors
Loading...
May improve ECG measurement precision clinically; leaves open external validation and outcome trials.
Cross-Sectional (n=50)
Does QRSense provide comparable measurement agreement and reproducibility to conventional manual measurement for ECG tracings?
Effect estimate: Lin's CCC 0.9527 for QRS voltage and 0.9221 for QRS duration
QRSense is a valid and reliable open-source tool that offers measurement agreement comparable to expert human measurement for ECG parameters.
Obregón-Rosas et al. (2026) reported a cross-sectional. QRSense vs. conventional manual measurement was evaluated on Measurement agreement and reproducibility (Lin's Concordance Correlation Coefficient) (Lin's CCC 0.9527 for QRS voltage and 0.9221 for QRS duration). QRSense demonstrated excellent agreement with manual measurement for QRS voltage (Lin's CCC 0.9527) and QRS duration (Lin's CCC 0.9221), with negligible mean bias.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: