Why the study?
The neurophysiological processes underlying taVNS are not fully understood, and the replicability of findings regarding its effects on heart rate variability as a candidate biomarker has been questioned.
Does acute transcutaneous auricular vagus nerve stimulation alter heart rate variability in healthy participants?
Does acute transcutaneous auricular vagus nerve stimulation alter heart rate variability in healthy participants?
A living Bayesian meta-analysis found strong evidence that acute transcutaneous auricular vagus nerve stimulation does not alter heart rate variability compared to sham in healthy individuals, challenging its utility as a robust biomarker.
Provides no support for acute taVNS altering HRV; challenges biomarker utility and extends null evidence to meta-analytic level.
Non-invasive brain stimulation techniques, such as transcutaneous auricular vagus nerve stimulation (taVNS), have considerable potential for clinical use. Beneficial effects of taVNS have been demonstrated on symptoms in patients with mental or neurological disorders as well as transdiagnostic dimensions, including mood and motivation. However, since taVNS research is still an emerging field, the underlying neurophysiological processes are not yet fully understood, and the replicability of findings on biomarkers of taVNS effects has been questioned. Here, we perform a living Bayesian random effects meta-analysis to synthesize the current evidence concerning the effects of taVNS on heart rate variability (HRV), a candidate biomarker that has, so far, received most attention in the field. To keep the synthesis of evidence transparent and up to date as new studies are being published, we developed a Shiny web app that regularly incorporates new results and enables users to modify study selection criteria to evaluate the robustness of the inference across potential confounds. Our analysis focuses on 17 single-blind studies comparing taVNS versus sham in healthy participants. These newly synthesized results provide strong evidence for the null hypothesis ( g = 0.011, CI shortest = [−0.103, 0.125], BF 01 = 25.587), indicating that acute taVNS does not alter HRV compared to sham. To conclude, based on a synthesis of the available evidence to date, there is no support for the hypothesis that HRV is a robust biomarker for acute taVNS. By increasing transparency and timeliness, we believe that the concept of living meta-analyses can lead to transformational benefits in emerging fields such as non-invasive brain stimulation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wolf et al. (2021) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: