ArticleScientific reports2026
Reliability of short-term measurements of heart rate variability (HRV) in patients with non-permanent atrial fibrillation.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Short-term measurements of heart rate variability (HRV) are practical, noninvasive markers of autonomic activity, and reduced HRV has been associated with onset and recurrence of non-permanent atrial fibrillation. However, clinical use is limited by strict standardization requirements and uncertain reliability in clinical populations. We evaluated the reliability of short-term HRV derived from 48-h Holter recordings during sinus rhythm in patients with non-permanent AF. Fifty participants underwent two standardized outpatient recordings at Holter attachment and removal, and additional, manually selected, out-of-hospital daytime and night-time presumed-sleep segments, with low editing burden, were extracted. HRV was assessed using SDNN and RMSSD. Reliability was evaluated using Bland-Altman limits of agreement (LoA) and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). For standardized outpatient recordings, LoA ranged from 43 to 242% for SDNN and 38% to 280% for RMSSD, with ICC values of 0.67 and 0.43, respectively. Consecutive night-time presumed-sleep segments showed higher relative reliability, with ICC values of 0.79 for SDNN and 0.89 for RMSSD, but absolute agreement remained limited (LoA 53%-173% and 59%-170%). These findings indicate poor absolute reliability in this workflow, limiting individual-level clinical interpretation, and likely reflecting a combination of measurement-process variability, inherent to a clinically pragmatic workflow and biological within-person variability in HRV.
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.