Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
In the United States, more than 50 million electrocardiograms (ECGs) per year are read by computerized ECG-reading systems.1 Portable equipment that interprets ECGs is now widely available to clinics and physicians. The rapid spread of computerized ECG-reading systems is a direct result of the enhanced efficiency of ECG storage, retrieval, editing, data management, and billing. In contrast, the development of better programs to interpret ECGs2 has lagged behind, partly because they are very labor-intensive.In this issue of the Journal, Willems et al.3 of the European Working Party on Common Standards for Quantitative Electrocardiography (CSE) report on an important . . .
Laks et al. (1991) studied this question.