全科医生在初级保健中心电图读数的准确性

Paulo Santos, Paulo Pessanha, Manuel Viana, M. Campelo, J. Nunes, A. Hespanhol, F. Macedo, Luciana Couto
{"title":"全科医生在初级保健中心电图读数的准确性","authors":"Paulo Santos, Paulo Pessanha, Manuel Viana, M. Campelo, J. Nunes, A. Hespanhol, F. Macedo, Luciana Couto","doi":"10.2478/s11536-013-0288-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BackgroundThe electrocardiogram (ECG) is a diagnostic test commonly used in daily Primary Care practice. General Practitioners (GP) often feel unsure about their interpretation of ECGs, so they engage external services to provide it.AimTo evaluate accuracy of ECG readings done by GPs by comparison with those done by a cardiologist as the gold standard.MethodsWe studied 195 ECGs collected consecutively during first semester of 2010 in an urban Health Centre of Portugal. Each ECG was read by each physician and inter-observer agreement was evaluated. After coding by Novacode, sensitivity and specificity of GP’s readings were calculated.ResultsInter-observer agreement between GP readings was “good” with an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.727 (CI 95%: 0.670–0.779). When compared with gold standard, GP achieved a “good” agreement with an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.712 (CI 95%: 0.659–0.762). The overall accuracy of GP for detecting abnormalities was 81.0% (95%CI: 75.7–85.6%), with a sensitivity of 84.8% (95%CI: 77.3–90.6%) and a specificity of 77.5% (95%CI: 69.7–84.2%). For normal tests, accuracy was 79.9% (95%CI: 74.7–84.3). In the most prevalent classes of abnormalities, accuracy was higher than 90%.ConclusionGP showed good skills in reading ECGs in their practice of Primary Care. Better attention should be given to ischemic abnormalities present on ECGs. Key message: General Practitioners demonstrate good skills for reading the ECGs of patients on a primary care centre when compared to the gold standard defined by a cardiologist reading.","PeriodicalId":50709,"journal":{"name":"Central European Journal of Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-07-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2478/s11536-013-0288-9","citationCount":"10","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Accuracy of general practitioners’ readings of ECG in primary care\",\"authors\":\"Paulo Santos, Paulo Pessanha, Manuel Viana, M. Campelo, J. Nunes, A. Hespanhol, F. Macedo, Luciana Couto\",\"doi\":\"10.2478/s11536-013-0288-9\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"BackgroundThe electrocardiogram (ECG) is a diagnostic test commonly used in daily Primary Care practice. General Practitioners (GP) often feel unsure about their interpretation of ECGs, so they engage external services to provide it.AimTo evaluate accuracy of ECG readings done by GPs by comparison with those done by a cardiologist as the gold standard.MethodsWe studied 195 ECGs collected consecutively during first semester of 2010 in an urban Health Centre of Portugal. Each ECG was read by each physician and inter-observer agreement was evaluated. After coding by Novacode, sensitivity and specificity of GP’s readings were calculated.ResultsInter-observer agreement between GP readings was “good” with an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.727 (CI 95%: 0.670–0.779). When compared with gold standard, GP achieved a “good” agreement with an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.712 (CI 95%: 0.659–0.762). The overall accuracy of GP for detecting abnormalities was 81.0% (95%CI: 75.7–85.6%), with a sensitivity of 84.8% (95%CI: 77.3–90.6%) and a specificity of 77.5% (95%CI: 69.7–84.2%). For normal tests, accuracy was 79.9% (95%CI: 74.7–84.3). In the most prevalent classes of abnormalities, accuracy was higher than 90%.ConclusionGP showed good skills in reading ECGs in their practice of Primary Care. Better attention should be given to ischemic abnormalities present on ECGs. Key message: General Practitioners demonstrate good skills for reading the ECGs of patients on a primary care centre when compared to the gold standard defined by a cardiologist reading.\",\"PeriodicalId\":50709,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Central European Journal of Medicine\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2014-07-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2478/s11536-013-0288-9\",\"citationCount\":\"10\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Central European Journal of Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2478/s11536-013-0288-9\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Central European Journal of Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2478/s11536-013-0288-9","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 10

摘要

背景:心电图(ECG)是日常初级保健实践中常用的诊断测试。全科医生(GP)经常不确定他们对心电图的解释,所以他们聘请外部服务来提供。目的将全科医生的心电图读数与心脏病专家的心电图读数作为金标准进行比较,以评估其准确性。方法对2010年第一学期在葡萄牙某城市卫生中心连续采集的195张心电图进行研究。每个医生都要阅读每个心电图,并评估观察者之间的一致性。经Novacode编码后,计算GP读数的敏感性和特异性。结果GP读数之间的观察者间一致性“良好”,类内相关系数为0.727 (CI 95%: 0.670-0.779)。与金标准相比,GP达到了“良好”的一致性,类内相关系数为0.712 (CI 95%: 0.659-0.762)。GP检测异常的总体准确率为81.0% (95%CI: 75.7-85.6%),敏感性为84.8% (95%CI: 77.3-90.6%),特异性为77.5% (95%CI: 69.7-84.2%)。对于正常检测,准确率为79.9% (95%CI: 74.7-84.3)。在最常见的异常类别中,准确率高于90%。结论该院在初级保健实践中,具有良好的心电图阅读能力。对心电图上出现的缺血性异常应给予更好的关注。关键信息:与心脏病专家阅读的黄金标准相比,全科医生在初级保健中心阅读患者心电图方面表现出良好的技能。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Accuracy of general practitioners’ readings of ECG in primary care
BackgroundThe electrocardiogram (ECG) is a diagnostic test commonly used in daily Primary Care practice. General Practitioners (GP) often feel unsure about their interpretation of ECGs, so they engage external services to provide it.AimTo evaluate accuracy of ECG readings done by GPs by comparison with those done by a cardiologist as the gold standard.MethodsWe studied 195 ECGs collected consecutively during first semester of 2010 in an urban Health Centre of Portugal. Each ECG was read by each physician and inter-observer agreement was evaluated. After coding by Novacode, sensitivity and specificity of GP’s readings were calculated.ResultsInter-observer agreement between GP readings was “good” with an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.727 (CI 95%: 0.670–0.779). When compared with gold standard, GP achieved a “good” agreement with an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.712 (CI 95%: 0.659–0.762). The overall accuracy of GP for detecting abnormalities was 81.0% (95%CI: 75.7–85.6%), with a sensitivity of 84.8% (95%CI: 77.3–90.6%) and a specificity of 77.5% (95%CI: 69.7–84.2%). For normal tests, accuracy was 79.9% (95%CI: 74.7–84.3). In the most prevalent classes of abnormalities, accuracy was higher than 90%.ConclusionGP showed good skills in reading ECGs in their practice of Primary Care. Better attention should be given to ischemic abnormalities present on ECGs. Key message: General Practitioners demonstrate good skills for reading the ECGs of patients on a primary care centre when compared to the gold standard defined by a cardiologist reading.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Central European Journal of Medicine
Central European Journal of Medicine 医学-医学:内科
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信