ArticleScientific data2025
One-week test-retest recordings of resting cardiorespiratory data for reliability analysis.
Article in Scientific data, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Guidelines for rigor and reproducibility of heart rate variability within human cardiovascular research.American journal of physiology. Heart and circulatory physiology · 2026Review
- Continuous blood pressure variability within young, healthy adults: a test-retest study to assess relative and absolute reliability.American journal of physiology. Heart and circulatory physiology · 2026Article
- Assessing the Impact of BMI and Glycaemic Control on Cardiac Autonomic Neuropathy in Patients with Early and Long-standing Diabetes Mellitus: A Window of Opportunity.Annals of neurosciences · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Heart rate variability (HRV) is a key indicator of cardiac autonomic function, making reliable assessment crucial. To examine the test-retest stability of resting HRV in healthy individuals, fifty participants attended two lab sessions within a week, at the same time of day. After a 5-minute acclimatization period, electrocardiogram and respiration were recorded at rest. For validation, average heart rate and RMSSD were assessed over 15 minutes using a validated open-source toolbox. Test-retest agreement was evaluated using intra-class correlation (ICC), and coefficients of variation (CV). Mean heart rate showed high stability (ICC = 0.81, CV = 6%), while RMSSD had lower concordance (ICC = 0.75) and greater variation (CV = 30%). These findings indicate good test-retest agreement for standard HRV features. However, a wide range of methodologies exists for assessing various properties of heart rate dynamics. This database is intended to support other researchers in testing additional HRV metrics to evaluate their reliability in healthy individuals.
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.