首页> 外文期刊>Journal of Electrocardiology: An International Publication for the Study of the Electrical Activities of the Heart >Computer-based rhythm diagnosis and its possible influence on nonexpert electrocardiogram readers
【24h】

Computer-based rhythm diagnosis and its possible influence on nonexpert electrocardiogram readers

机译:基于计算机的节奏诊断及其对非专业心电图阅读器的影响

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Background: Systems providing computer-based analysis of the resting electrocardiogram (ECG) seek to improve the quality of health care by providing accurate and timely automatic diagnosis of, for example, cardiac rhythm to clinicians. The accuracy of these diagnoses, however, remains questionable. Objectives: We tested the hypothesis that (a) 2 independent automated ECG systems have better accuracy in rhythm diagnosis than nonexpert clinicians and (b) both systems provide correct diagnostic suggestions in a large percentage of cases where the diagnosis of nonexpert clinicians is incorrect. Methods: Five hundred ECGs were manually analyzed by 2 senior experts, 3 nonexpert clinicians, and automatically by 2 automated systems. The accuracy of the nonexpert rhythm statements was compared with the accuracy of each system statement. The proportion of rhythm statements when the clinician's diagnoses were incorrect and the systems instead provided correct diagnosis was assessed. Results: A total of 420 sinus rhythms and 156 rhythm disturbances were recognized by expert reading. Significance of the difference in accuracy between nonexperts and systems was P = .45 for system A and P = .11 for system B. The percentage of correct automated diagnoses in cases when the clinician was incorrect was 28% ± 10% for system A and 25% ± 11% for system B (P = .09). Conclusion: The rhythm diagnoses of automated systems did not reach better average accuracy than those of nonexpert readings. The computer diagnosis of rhythm can be incorrect in cases where the clinicians fail in reaching the correct ECG diagnosis.
机译:背景:提供基于计算机的静息心电图(ECG)分析的系统,旨在通过向临床医生提供准确及时的自动心律诊断来提高医疗质量。然而,这些诊断的准确性仍然值得怀疑。目的:我们检验了以下假设:(a)2个独立的自动化ECG系统在心律诊断方面的准确性要高于非专家临床医生,并且(b)在大部分非专家临床医生诊断不正确的情况下,这两个系统都提供了正确的诊断建议。方法:由2位高级专家,3位非专业临床医生对500例心电图进行手动分析,并由2台自动化系统进行自动分析。将非专家节奏陈述的准确性与每个系统陈述的准确性进行了比较。当临床医生的诊断不正确并且系统提供了正确的诊断时,对节奏陈述的比例进行了评估。结果:专家阅读共识别出420种窦性心律和156种心律失常。对于系统A,非专家与系统之间的准确性差异的意义为P = 0.45,对于系统B为P = .11。如果临床医生不正确,正确的自动诊断百分比为系统A的28%±10%。系统B为25%±11%(P = .09)。结论:自动化系统的节奏诊断没有达到比非专家读数更好的平均准确度。如果临床医生未能达到正确的ECG诊断,则计算机的节律诊断可能不正确。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号