Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39411688›Full record

ArticleAdvanced biomedical research2024

Autonomic Response Latency Revisited: Assessment of Repeatability in Healthy Subjects.

Annie S Jose, Shival Srivastav, Bharati Mehta

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Advanced biomedical research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

3 authors.

Annie S JoseDepartment of Physiology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Jodhpur, Rajasthan, India.
Shival SrivastavDepartment of Physiology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Jodhpur, Rajasthan, India.
Bharati MehtaDepartment of Physiology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Jodhpur, Rajasthan, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Autonomic function assessment provides valuable information regarding the status of the autonomic nervous system. The time lag between the onset of orthostasis and the peak/nadir of heart rate response is a surrogate of the integrity of underlying autonomic neural pathways. Autonomic response latency (ARL) is a relatively novel yet underreported parameter in this context. Test-retest repeatability of this parameter has not been evaluated previously. Materials and Methods: We recruited 31 healthy adults (17 males and 14 females; 29.00 ± 5.44 years) and subjected them to postural challenge tests on five instances - forenoon and afternoon of day 1, the next day, 1 week later, and 1 month later. Tachycardia and bradycardia latencies (TL and BL) were computed using heart rate derived from digital ECG data. Repeatability was assessed using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and coefficient of variation (CoV). Results: ICCs for TL and BL were 0.69 (0.56, 0.82) and 0.77 (0.66, 0.87), respectively. The CoVs for TL and BL were 14.8% and 12.4%, respectively. Sex-based subgroup analysis revealed ICCs for TL and BL in males to be 0.71 (0.53, 0.86) and 0.74 (0.57, 0.88) and in females to be 0.68 (0.64, 0.86) and 0.82 (0.66, 0.93), respectively. CoVs for TL and BL were 14.4% and 13.8% in male subjects and 15.4% and 10.7% in female subjects, respectively. Conclusion: ARL to orthostatic challenge demonstrated moderate to good test-retest repeatability. Based on our observations, we propose that ARL has potential as a consistent and repeatable index for the assessment of the integrity of autonomic neural pathways and therefore can help in the diagnosis of autonomic neuropathy.

Indexed as

Autonomic denervationautonomic nervous systemheart rateneurophysiology

Identifiers

PMID39411688
PMCPMC11478735

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.