Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

6 results

  • 3 - Information, innovation, and society

  • Edited by Yair Amichai-Hamburger
  • Book:
    Technology and Psychological Well-being
    Published online:
    22 December 2009
    Print publication:
    10 September 2009, pp 77-105

  • Summary

    That we are in the midst of an information “revolution” is a staple of media coverage of digital electronic technologies and their transformative social impact. This characterization seems so justified by our own personal and social experiences that it is easy to lose critical perspective on the subject of information. Is the relationship between information and society really any different today from what it had been prior to the late twentieth century? What is information that it is capable of causing social change? More broadly, what are technological innovations that they are able to cause social change and how has our well-being been affected by information technology-driven change? That is, are we better off, personally and socially, because of the digital information “revolution”? What follows explores answers to these questions.

    Revolution or evolution?

    When talk of revolution comes up it is worth keeping in mind the dictum of art historian Walter Friedlander (1957) that every so-called revolution becomes an evolution when its precursors are properly understood. While revolution implies a radical discontinuity with the past, evolution implies a deep continuity with the past, the episodic introduction of discontinuities into these continuities leading to the emergence of true novelties. History is far more central to the generation of evolutionary phenomena than to revolutionary ones.

  • Emergency Physician Interpretation of Prehospital, Paramedic-Acquired Electrocardiograms

  • Jeffrey A. Schaffer, Terence D. Valenzuela, Arthur L. Wright, Lani Clark, Riemke M. Brakema, Steven Goldman, Daniel W. Spaite
  • Journal:
    Prehospital and Disaster Medicine / Volume 7 / Issue 3 / September 1992
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    28 June 2012, pp. 251-255
    Print publication:
    September 1992
  • Hypothesis:

    Emergency physician interpretation of prehospital, paramedic-acquired, electrocardiograms (ECG) is accurate judged by comparison with that of a reference cardiologist.

    Methods:

    Twelve-lead ECGs were obtained by paramedics in the field from 150 patients with acute chest pain. The ECGs were transmitted by cellular telephone to a central location. Each ECG was assessed for evidence of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) by: 1) a third-year, emergency medicine resident (EMP-R); 2) a residency-trained, board-certified, emergency physician (EMP-RT); 3) an emergency physician board certified under the practice option (EMP-PT); and 4) a board-certified cardiologist. Agreement between each emergency physician and the cardiologist was assessed by the kappa statistic. Hospital records were reviewed for final diagnosis of each patient.

    Results:

    Sixteen of 150 (10.7%) patients received a hospital discharge diagnosis of AMI. Sensitivity of physician interpretation ranged from 0.31 to 0.56. All physicians achieved specificity of 0.99. False-positive rates for the physicians ranged from 0.18–0.29. The mean positive predictive value for the four physicians was 0.77±0.05; the mean negative predictive value was 0.94±0.01. The total agreements between the EMP-R, EMP-RT, and EMP-PT and the cardiologists were 0.97, 0.96, and 0.97, respectively. Kappa values for agreement between the emergency physicians and the cardiologist ranged from 0.65–0.79.

    Conclusions:

    Residency-trained or board-certified emergency physician interpretations of prehospital, paramedic-acquired 12-lead ECGs show a high degree of agreement with reference cardiologist interpretations.