ArticleInternational journal of exercise science2024
Validity of a Heart Rate Monitor for Heart Rate Variability Analysis During an Orthostatic Challenge.
Article in International journal of exercise science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Heart rate variability (HRV) is used as a measure of autonomic nervous system (ANS) function and is based on heart rate (HR) beat-to-beat time interval variance analysis. Various techniques are used for recording HR, however, few studies have compared Holter-type recordings vs HR monitors (HRM) during an orthostatic challenge.
objectivesCompare HRV measures from an electrocardiogram (ECG) Holter and a HRM as a tool for investigating ANS response for post-concussion rehabilitation follow-up.
methodsTwenty-seven participants (
resultsNo significant differences were observed between R-R measurements taken with both systems under equal conditions (supine and standing). Same variables under similar conditions were significantly correlated (
conclusionBoth recording and analysis systems (Holter vs HRM) yielded comparable results. Thus, both systems appear valid and interchangeable for HRV analysis for measuring orthostatic challenge HRV responses.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.