September 14, 2020Open Access

Pooled data from two studies (n=3,869,274) showed a non-significant relative decrease in sudden cardiac death with ECG screening (RR 0.58; 95% CI 0.23, 1.45, I²=71%).

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Why the study?

To determine the effect of ECG screening on the prevention of sudden cardiac arrest and death in young athletes and military members.

Does pre-participation examination including ECG prevent sudden cardiac arrest and death in young athletes and military members?

Population

11,689,172 athletes or military 40 years of age or younger across 4 studies

Comparison

Pre-participation examination including ECG vs no screening, usual care, or examination without ECG

Design

Systematic review and meta-analysis

Authors

ALAaron Lear NPNiraj Patel CMChanda Mullen

Discussion

Member takes

Overview

Inconclusive low-quality evidence precludes routine ECG screening; leaves open need for rigorous trials in athletes and military members.

Structured PICO

Does pre-participation examination including ECG prevent sudden cardiac arrest and death in young athletes and military members?

Population

Young athletes and military members 40 years of age or younger. 4 non-randomized controlled studies (3 published articles, 1 conference abstract) pooling 11,689,172 participants.

Intervention

Pre-participation examination including electrocardiogram (ECG) screening.

Comparator

No screening, usual care, or pre-participation examination without ECG.

Outcome

Difference in sudden cardiac arrest and death (SCA/D) in athletes and military populations screened with ECG compared to control groups not screened with ECG.hard clinical

There is very low-quality evidence with high uncertainty regarding whether ECG screening prevents sudden cardiac death in young athletes and military members.

Limitations

High risk of bias in all included studies
Small number of included studies (only 2 eligible for meta-analysis)
High heterogeneity
Poor precision of effect estimates
Reliance on historical control groups

Cite This Study

Lear et al. (2020) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a70e23fe5469ee92be18ebb https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.09.13.20193706

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

September 14, 2020Open Access

Pooled data from two studies (n=3,869,274) showed a non-significant relative decrease in sudden cardiac death with ECG screening (RR 0.58; 95% CI 0.23, 1.45, I²=71%).

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Why the study?

To determine the effect of ECG screening on the prevention of sudden cardiac arrest and death in young athletes and military members.

Does pre-participation examination including ECG prevent sudden cardiac arrest and death in young athletes and military members?

Population

11,689,172 athletes or military 40 years of age or younger across 4 studies

Comparison

Pre-participation examination including ECG vs no screening, usual care, or examination without ECG

Design

Systematic review and meta-analysis

Authors

ALAaron Lear NPNiraj Patel CMChanda Mullen

Discussion

Member takes

Overview

Inconclusive low-quality evidence precludes routine ECG screening; leaves open need for rigorous trials in athletes and military members.

Structured PICO

Does pre-participation examination including ECG prevent sudden cardiac arrest and death in young athletes and military members?

Population

Young athletes and military members 40 years of age or younger. 4 non-randomized controlled studies (3 published articles, 1 conference abstract) pooling 11,689,172 participants.

Intervention

Pre-participation examination including electrocardiogram (ECG) screening.

Comparator

No screening, usual care, or pre-participation examination without ECG.

Outcome

Difference in sudden cardiac arrest and death (SCA/D) in athletes and military populations screened with ECG compared to control groups not screened with ECG.hard clinical

There is very low-quality evidence with high uncertainty regarding whether ECG screening prevents sudden cardiac death in young athletes and military members.

Limitations

High risk of bias in all included studies
Small number of included studies (only 2 eligible for meta-analysis)
High heterogeneity
Poor precision of effect estimates
Reliance on historical control groups

Cite This Study

Lear et al. (2020) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a70e23fe5469ee92be18ebb https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.09.13.20193706

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark