hi umshebi, page-26

Fificm ... you say :

"truthfully speaking, ecgs are not hard to read in 99% of the cases, IMI is really dealing with a niche technology where pick up of the subtleties of the ecg by non-medical or inexperienced medical staff can be missed"


But to quote Umshebi again on 12/2/08 :

"The article published last year (Alternative Risk Markers in Coronary Artery Disease (ARMCAD Study):
Interim Analysis Heart, Lung and Circulation, Volume 16, Supplement 2,
2007, Pages S127-S128 D. Kotecha, H. Krum, B. Billah, M. Flather, L.
Roberts and D. Eccleston) was significant in that it showed that for cardiologists who KNEW there was a problem with EVERY patient they were reviewing the ECG of, they were only able to accurately identify a problem in approx. 55% of the patients, based on visual interpretation of the ECG. The CPI lifts this figure well in to the 90s for many common cardiac conditions."