Journals Library

An error occurred retrieving content to display, please try again.

Page not found (404)

Sorry - the page you requested could not be found.

Please choose a page from the navigation or try a website search above to find the information you need.

The summary sensitivity of lead-I ECG devices was 93.9% and the summary specificity was 96.5%, with costs per QALY for all lead-I ECG devices being between £1000 and £16,000.

{{author}}{{author}}{{($index < metadata.AuthorsAndEtalArray.length-1) ? ',' : '.'}}

Rui Duarte, Angela Stainthorpe, Janette Greenhalgh, Marty Richardson, Sarah Nevitt, James Mahon, Eleanor Kotas, Angela Boland, Howard Thom, Tom Marshall, Mark Hall & Yemisi Takwoingi.

Rui Duarte 1,*, Angela Stainthorpe 1, Janette Greenhalgh 1, Marty Richardson 1, Sarah Nevitt 1,2, James Mahon 3, Eleanor Kotas 1, Angela Boland 1, Howard Thom 4, Tom Marshall 5, Mark Hall 6, Yemisi Takwoingi 5,7

1 Liverpool Reviews and Implementation Group (LRiG), Institute of Population Health Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
2 Department of Biostatistics, Institute of Translational Medicine, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
3 Coldingham Analytical Services, Berwickshire, UK
4 Bristol Medical School, Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
5 Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
6 Liverpool Heart and Chest Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK
7 NIHR Birmingham Biomedical Research Centre, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust and University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
* Corresponding author Email: rui.duarte@liverpool.ac.uk

Funding: {{metadata.Funding}}

{{metadata.Journal}} Volume: {{metadata.Volume}}, Issue: {{metadata.Issue}}, Published in {{metadata.PublicationDate | date:'MMMM yyyy'}}

https://doi.org/{{metadata.DOI}}

Citation: {{author}}{{ (($index < metadata.AuthorsArray.length-1) && ($index <=6)) ? ', ' : '' }}{{(metadata.AuthorsArray.length <= 6) ? '.' : '' }} {{(metadata.AuthorsArray.length > 6) ? 'et al.' : ''}} . {{metadata.JournalShortName}} {{metadata.PublicationDate | date:'yyyy'}};{{metadata.Volume}}({{metadata.Issue}})

Crossmark status check

Report Content

The full text of this issue is available as a PDF document from the Toolkit section on this page.

The full text of this issue is available as a PDF document from the Toolkit section on this page.

If you would like to receive a notification when this project publishes in the NIHR Journals Library, please submit your email address below.

 

Responses to this report

No responses have been published.

 

If you would like to submit a response to this publication, please do so using the form below:

Comments submitted to the NIHR Journals Library are electronic letters to the editor. They enable our readers to debate issues raised in research reports published in the Journals Library. We aim to post within 2 working days all responses that contribute substantially to the topic investigated, as determined by the Editors.

Your name and affiliations will be published with your comment.

Once published, you will not have the right to remove or edit your response. The Editors may add, remove, or edit comments at their absolute discretion.

By submitting your response, you are stating that you agree to the terms & conditions