Key result
The ANALYSE reporting format significantly improved the aggregated mean score of 12-lead electrocardiogram interpretation by novices compared to a standard format (75% vs 53%; p < 0.01).
Why the study?
Does the ANALYSE interactive reporting format improve diagnostic performance scores in novices interpreting 12-lead electrocardiograms compared to a standard format?
Population
n=15 novice participants interpreting a total of 150 12-lead electrocardiogram recordings
Comparison
ANALYSE interactive reporting format vs Standard reporting format
Design
Recordings interpreted randomly using a standard and the novel reporting format
Authors
Loading...
May enhance novice ECG accuracy; hypothesis-generating before clinical adoption or outcome trials.
RCT (n=15)
Randomly assigned reporting format
Does the ANALYSE interactive reporting format improve diagnostic performance scores in novices interpreting 12-lead electrocardiograms compared to a standard format?
Effect estimate: Wilcoxon Z Score -3.2374
Absolute Event Rate: 75% vs 53%
p-value: p=< 0.01
The ANALYSE interactive reporting format significantly improves the accuracy of 12-lead ECG interpretation among novice readers compared to standard reporting.
Breen et al. (2017) conducted an RCT in Electrocardiogram interpretation (n=15). ANALYSE reporting format vs. Standard reporting format was evaluated on Overall aggregated mean score of electrocardiogram interpretation (Wilcoxon Z Score -3.2374, p=< 0.01). The ANALYSE reporting format significantly improved the aggregated mean score of 12-lead electrocardiogram interpretation by novices compared to a standard format (75% vs 53%; p < 0.01).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: