Table 1: Compilation of Results Validating Electrocardiographic Imaging Against Contact Data.
| Study | n | EGM Correlation | AT Correlation | RT Correlation | Localisation accuracy (cm) | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oster et al. 1997[37] | 1 | >0.9 | NA | NA | <1.0 | Torso-tank |
| Burnes et al. 2001[12] | 1 | 0.9 | NA | NA | 8.69 | Torso-tank |
| Ghanem et al. 2005[21] | 3 | 0.72 ± 0.25 | NA | NA | NA | Human |
| Cluitman et al. 2017[16] | 4 | 0.71 ± 0.5 | 0.82 | 0.73 | 1.0 (0.7–1.7) | Dog |
| Bear et al. 2018[17] | 5 | 0.69–0.72 | 0.72–0.78 | NA | 1.6 (0.9–2.9) | Pig |
| Bear et al. 2018[14] | 8 | NA | 0.68 ± 0.25 | NA | NA | Torso-tank |
| Bear et al. 2019[38] | 3 | NA | 0.79 ± 0.11 | NA | NA | Torso-tank |
AT = activation time; Correlation = median or mean correlation; EGM = electrogram; RT = repolarisation time