论文部分内容阅读
对比分析了两种仪器、四种方法和诊断标准的体表检测248例心室晚电位结果,发现采用不同仪器、方法和诊断标准所得结果有差异。作者认为以Simson软件自动测算数据的仪器便于应用,C、D两法诊断的准确率与符合率较高,可同时采用。至于以滤波后QRS间期的宽度作为诊断标准,因其阳性和阴性间有较多的交叉重叠,不宜使用。欲确定特异性、敏感性均高的统一方法和诊断标准,尚须进行大系列资料的比较性研究。
Comparative analysis of two instruments, four methods and diagnostic criteria for the detection of 248 cases of ventricular late potential results and found that using different instruments, methods and diagnostic criteria for the results are different. The authors believe that the instrument automatically calculates the data with Simson software is easy to use, C, D two diagnostic methods with high accuracy and coincidence rate can be used simultaneously. As for the filtered QRS interval width as a diagnostic criteria, because of the positive and negative overlap between more cross, overlap, should not be used. To determine specificity and sensitivity of uniform methods and diagnostic criteria, the need to conduct a large series of comparative studies.