Key result
Three commercially available heart rate variability instruments showed large variation and systematic bias in limits of agreement analysis, despite excellent intraclass correlation (lower 95% CI >0.75).
Population
30 subjects (20 males) of median age 27.5 (range 19-59 years)
Design
Cross-sectional
Authors
Loading...
Caution advised comparing HRV values across commercial devices; leaves open need for standardized validation protocols.
Cross-Sectional (n=30)
Effect estimate: ICC > 0.75
Commercially available heart rate variability instruments may show significant variation and systematic bias due to differing recording protocols, necessitating caution when comparing results across different devices.
Sandercock et al. (2004) reported a cross-sectional. Three commercially available instruments for measuring heart rate variability vs. Each other was evaluated on Agreement between measures of heart rate variability (ICC > 0.75). Three commercially available heart rate variability instruments showed large variation and systematic bias in limits of agreement analysis, despite excellent intraclass correlation (lower 95% CI >0.75).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: