Search PubMed⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 7952659

A recursive digital differentiator for ECG preprocessing.

D Ebenezer·F F Papa
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

A simple recursive digital low-pass differentiator is derived from a classical lossless resonator model. It is shown that the error behaviour of the proposed differentiator is more uniformly distributed with respect to an ideal differentiator than that of a typical non-recursive digital low-pass differentiator widely used in electrocardiogram processing. The recursive digital low-pass differentiator is implemented in the form of a correlation receiver model suitable for QRS detection. Three-cycle single-lead ECG test data are used to demonstrate low-pass filtering, baseline drift suppression, and R-wave detection.

Explore related subjects

BiasComputer SimulationDecision Support TechniquesElectrocardiographyEvaluation Studies as TopicNumerical Analysis, Computer-AssistedSensitivity and SpecificitySignal Processing, Computer-AssistedComparative StudyJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

D Ebenezer, F F Papa. 1994. A recursive digital differentiator for ECG preprocessing.. https://doi.org/10.1016/1350-4533(94)90050-7

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2026

Assessment of blinding in pharmacotherapy and noninvasive neuromodulation randomized controlled trials for neuropathic pain in adults.

In randomized controlled trials (RCTs), study participants and research personnel are often blinded to minimize biases related to knowing treatment allocation. To determine if blinding was effective, participants may be asked which treatment they believe they received ("treatment guess"). This descriptive review characterized blinding assessment (BA) reporting in pharmacotherapy and neuromodulation neuropathic pain RCTs. Of 288 papers, 36 (12.5%) reported a BA. One paper reported the results of 2 studies, so in total 37 studies with a BA were assessed. Of these, 19 were crossover, 17 parallel, and 1 partial crossover in design. All 37 studies assessed participant blinding, and 10 also assessed investigator blinding. Approximately 27% included an "unsure" answer option for treatment guess, and 38% asked the reason for the guess. There were no clear patterns in BA reporting across time nor based on treatment type. Seventeen trials provided sufficient data to calculate Bang Blinding Index (BI) to determine blinding success. Participants remained blinded (BI = 0 &#xb1; 0.2) in 10/17 placebo and 10/17 treatment arms, 6 placebo and 5 treatment arms had a BI > 0.2 suggesting possible unblinding, whereas 1 placebo and 2 treatment arms had a BI < -0.2 suggesting misinformed guessing. Overall, we found that BAs are done in a minority of published neuropathic pain trials and with variable methodology. Given the importance of minimizing risk of bias because of treatment unblinding, future studies should consider including BAs, and further consensus building is necessary to determine if and how BAs should be conducted and interpreted in analgesic clinical trials.

Bias↗