ArticleJournal of biological methods2025
Recovery pulse rate and cardiovascular function indices in young female adults following orthostasis.
Article in Journal of biological methods, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Cortical arousal and autonomic regulation: The role of coldWorld journal of methodology · 2026Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Recovery pulse rate (RPR) and other cardiovascular indices - such as heart rate variability and blood pressure recovery - are underutilized tools in assessing autonomic and cardiovascular adaptability to orthostasis. While orthostatic hypotension is well-documented, the prognostic significance of delayed heart rate recovery and impaired autonomic compensation remains insufficiently explored. Emerging evidence suggests that abnormal RPR may predict cardiovascular morbidity and autonomic dysfunction; however, standardized clinical guidelines for its interpretation are lacking. Bridging this gap could enhance early detection of dysautonomia and cardiovascular risk stratification. Objective: This study aimed to examine the pattern of RPR and cardiovascular function indices in healthy young female adults following 10 min of upright standing. Methods: This study evaluated post-orthostatic cardiovascular indices, including RPR measured at two intervals: 10 - 20 s and 21 - 31 s after returning to a reclining sitting position. A total of 35 healthy females were selected for the study, and appropriate inclusion was duly considered. Blood pressure, pulse rate, and other parameters were measured at baseline, after 10 min of standing, and after returning to a reclining sitting position using standard procedures. The first and second RPRs were calculated as the difference between the orthostatic pulse rate and the pulse rate measured during the two intervals, respectively, after returning to a reclining sitting position. Results: There was no significant difference between the first and second RPRs. Among the cardiovascular parameters, only systolic blood pressure and pulse pressure measured after the second RPR were significantly higher than baseline values. In addition, neither the first nor the second RPR correlated with body weight, height, or body mass index. Conclusion: No significant difference was found in autonomic response during the 10 - 20 s and 21 - 31 s post-orthostatic periods in young adult females. Incorporating RPR and related indices into clinical practice provides a non-invasive, cost-effective method to identify and monitor autonomic and cardiovascular dysfunction. This can guide therapeutic strategies, such as fluid management, exercise rehabilitation, or pharmacological interventions, tailored to improve autonomic balance and cardiovascular resilience.
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.