Key result
Computerized QT dispersion shows worse long-term reproducibility with ~27% relative error versus conventional ECG indices.
Why the study?
Does computerised QT dispersion measurement provide reproducible results compared to conventional ECG indices in healthy subjects?
Population
70 healthy volunteers (mean age 38 years, 35 men, 35 women) with a normal 12 lead electrocardiogram (ECG)
Comparison
Computerised QT dispersion measurement using MAC… vs Conventional ECG indices
Design
Cross-sectional
Follow-up
mean 8 days
Authors
Loading...
Computerised QT dispersion should not guide serial monitoring; leaves open its research utility pending validation in broader populations.
Observational (n=70)
Does computerised QT dispersion measurement provide reproducible results compared to conventional ECG indices in healthy subjects?
p-value: p=< 0.0001
Computerised measurements of QT dispersion are stable across posture and respiration changes but have inferior reproducibility compared to conventional ECG indices in healthy subjects.
Guo et al. (1998) conducted an observational in healthy subjects (n=70). Computerised QT dispersion (QTd) measurement vs. conventional ECG indices was evaluated on Reproducibility of QTd assessed by coefficient of variance (CV) and relative error (p=< 0.0001). Computerised measurements of QT dispersion in healthy subjects had worse long-term reproducibility (relative error 27.4-31.0%) than conventional ECG indices (1.8-7.9%; p<0.0001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: