A systematic review reveals consistent gaps in performance on the interpretation of electrocardiograms.
The accurate interpretation of the electrocardiogram is a linchpin of cardiovascular diagnosis, and yet studies have repeatedly reported deficiencies in physician performance. To summarize the literature, investigators conducted a systematic review of 78 studies with more than 10,000 participants.
Some of the studies were part of interventions to improve electrocardiographic interpretation. Overall, the pooled accuracy was 42% among medical students, 56% among residents, and 69% among practicing physicians. Among cardiologists and cardiology fellows, the pooled accuracy was 75%. Training improved performance, but marked gaps remained (median accuracy, 67%). Performance differed little based on the complexity or simplicity of the electrocardi…
Reviewing Author
DisclosuresConsultant/Advisory BoardUnited Healthcare; Element Science; Eyedentifeye, F-Prime
EquityHugo Health; Refactor Health; Element Science
Grant/Research SupportPfizer; Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; Janssen Research and Development, National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Engineering; National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; National Cancer Institute; American Heart Association
DisclosuresConsultant/Advisory BoardUnited Healthcare; Element Science; Eyedentifeye, F-Prime
EquityHugo Health; Refactor Health; Element Science
Grant/Research SupportPfizer; Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; Janssen Research and Development, National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Engineering; National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; National Cancer Institute; American Heart Association