Trial reportClinical cardiology2010
Diagnostic value of poor R-wave progression in electrocardiograms for diabetic cardiomyopathy in type 2 diabetic patients.
Trial report in Clinical cardiology, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Analysis of factors associated with poor R-wave progression in precordial leads in patients with acute pulmonary thromboembolism: a retrospective study.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2026Article
- A comprehensive review on diabetic cardiomyopathy (DCM): histological spectrum, diagnosis, pathogenesis, and management with conventional treatments and natural compounds.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2025Review
- Article
- Iron accumulation and lipid peroxidation: implication of ferroptosis in diabetic cardiomyopathy.Diabetology & metabolic syndrome · 2023Review
- Preliminary evidence for the presence of multiple forms of cell death in diabetes cardiomyopathy.Acta pharmaceutica Sinica. B · 2022Review
- The Protective Effect of Low-Dose Ethanol on Myocardial Fibrosis through Downregulating the JNK Signaling Pathway in Diabetic Rats.Journal of diabetes research · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDiabetic cardiomyopathy (DCMP) is a common complication of diabetes and is associated with increased mortality. It has been suggested that a poor R-wave progression in a resting electrocardiogram (ECG) could be a sign of cardiomyopathy. HYPOTHESIS: The aim of this study was primarily to analyze the relationship between poor R-wave progression and DCMP, and the effect of poor R-wave progression on cardiac functions in long-term follow-up.
methodsSeventy type 2 normotensive diabetics (33 female, 37 male; mean age, 52.9 ± 10.4 years) were included in the study. Poor R-wave progression in an ECG was defined as an R wave < 3 mm in V1-3 derivations. The patients were randomized in 2 groups, which were those without (group I, n = 34) and those with poor R-wave progression (group II, n = 36). All patients underwent conventional and tissue Doppler echocardiography and were followed in an outpatient clinic setting for 4 years.
resultsDemographic variables were similar between the 2 groups. In group II, left ventricular (LV) relaxation abnormality was more prevalent, the Tei index was higher, and in tissue Doppler mitral annulus Em velocities were significantly lower and Am velocities were higher than those with normal R-wave progression. At the end of the 4-year follow-up period, LV ejection fraction was decreased in group II, whereas LV mass index and Tei index were significantly increased.
conclusionsLV diastolic dysfunction is more frequently observed in diabetic patients with poor R-wave progression in ECG, which may be an early sign of LV dysfunction and DCMP in diabetics.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.