Why the study?
Does computer automated measurement of QT dispersion compare favorably to manual measurement in discriminating between normal subjects and cardiac patients?
Does computer automated measurement of QT dispersion compare favorably to manual measurement in discriminating between normal subjects and cardiac patients?
Automatic measurement of QT dispersion yields different absolute values compared to manual measurement but can effectively discriminate between normal and abnormal groups, with improved performance when small T waves are excluded.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Automated QT dispersion may discriminate cardiac patients from normals; leaves open prospective validation versus manual measurement before clinical adoption.
Murray et al. (1997) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: