Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31920710›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in physiology2019

AltitudeOmics: Spontaneous Baroreflex Sensitivity During Acclimatization to 5,260 m: A Comparison of Methods.

Nicolas Bourdillon, Sasan Yazdani, Jean-Marc Vesin, Andrew W Subudhi, Andrew T Lovering, Robert C Roach, Bengt Kayser

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in physiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 41% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Nicolas BourdillonInstitue of Sport Sciences, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Sasan YazdaniApplied Signal Processing Group, Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Jean-Marc VesinApplied Signal Processing Group, Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Andrew W SubudhiAltitude Research Center, Department of Medicine, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO, United States.
Andrew T LoveringDepartment of Human Physiology, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR, United States.
Robert C RoachAltitude Research Center, Department of Medicine, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO, United States.
Bengt KayserInstitue of Sport Sciences, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.
École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne · CHUniversity of Lausanne · CHUniversity of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus · USUniversity of Colorado Colorado Springs · USUniversity of Oregon · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionBaroreflex sensitivity (BRS) is essential to ensure rapid adjustment to variations in blood pressure (BP). Spontaneous baroreflex function can be assessed using continuous recordings of blood pressure. The goal of this study was to compare four methods for BRS quantification [the sequence, Bernardi's (BER), frequency and transfer function methods] to identify the most consistent method across an extreme range of conditions: rest and exercise, in normoxia, hypoxia, hypocapnia, and hypercapnia.

methodsUsing intra-radial artery BP in young healthy participants, BRS was calculated and compared using the four methods in normoxia, acute and chronic hypoxia (terrestrial altitude of 5,260 m) in hypocapnia (hyperventilation), hypercapnia (rebreathing) and during ramp exercise to exhaustion.

resultsThe sequence and BER methods for BRS estimation showed good agreement during the resting and exercise protocols, whilst the ultra- and very-low frequency bands of the frequency and transfer function methods were more discrepant. Removing respiratory frequency from the blood pressure traces affected primarily the sequence and BER methods and occasionally the frequency and transfer function methods. DISCUSSION/

conclusionThe sequence and BER methods contained more respiratory related information than the frequency and transfer function methods, indicating that the former two methods predominantly rely on respiratory effects of BRS. BER method is recommended because it is the easiest to compute and even though it tends to overestimate BRS compared to the sequence method, it is consistent with the other methods, whilst its interquartile range is the smallest.

Indexed as

altitudebaroreflex sensitivityexercisehypercapniahypoxia

Identifiers

PMID31920710
PMCPMC6914841
OpenAlexW2993074187

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 OpenQuestion graph.