ReviewNigerian medical journal : journal of the Nigeria Medical Association
Cardiac Autonomic Neuropathy: Comparative performance of Phase-Rectified Signal Averaging methods with Cardiac Autonomic Reflex Tests and Time Domain Heart rate variability.
Review in Nigerian medical journal : journal of the Nigeria Medical Association. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Phase-Rectified Signal Averaging (PRSA) methods, Deceleration (DC), and Acceleration Capacity (AC), provide a comprehensive assessment of cardiac autonomic function (CAN). There are no published studies comparing PRSA methods with conventional methods such as Time Domain Heart Rate Variability (TD-HRV) or Cardiac Autonomic Reflex Tests (CARTs), nor have they described a cut-off value for AC and DC to distinguish patients with CAN (+ve) from those without CAN (-ve). Our study compares PRSA methods with conventional methods and defines cut-off values for AC and DC to diagnose CAN. Methodology: We studied two cohorts: 126 individuals with normal ventricular function (derivation cohort) and 143 individuals with Left Ventricular Dysfunction (validation cohort). These patients underwent CARTs and supine, resting ECG recordings for 2 to 3 minutes. The patients were categorized as CAN +Ve and CAN -Ve based on TD-HRV parameters and the CARTs. Two different CART criteria were studied: the All-India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS-AFT) criteria and the 2011 Toronto Consensus recommendations. Patients with and without CAN were segregated by AC and DC values, and the methods were compared. The cutoff values for DC and AC were calculated using the ROC curve method from the derivation cohort and verified in the validation cohort. Results: A reduction in DC values and an increase in AC values indicate a higher chance of CAN. The cut-off values of -7 for AC and 7 for DC provide the highest accuracy in detecting CAN prevalence. Both values have an AUC of nearly 0.9. Reclassifying both Cohorts as CAN +Ve based on the derived cut-offs and comparing with the prevalence determined by conventional methods results in kappa values ranging from 0.5 to 0.7. Conclusions: A decrease in DC value and an increase in AC value are associated with a higher probability of CAN. An AC value ≥ -7 and a DC value ≤ 7 indicate good accuracy in identifying CAN.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42553899PMC13437010What 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.