↓ Skip to main content

Role of Editing of R–R Intervals in the Analysis of Heart Rate Variability

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Physiology, January 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
217 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
391 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Role of Editing of R–R Intervals in the Analysis of Heart Rate Variability
Published in
Frontiers in Physiology, January 2012
DOI 10.3389/fphys.2012.00148
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mirja A. Peltola

Abstract

This paper reviews the methods used for editing of the R-R interval time series and how this editing can influence the results of heart rate (HR) variability analyses. Measurement of HR variability from short and long-term electrocardiographic (ECG) recordings is a non-invasive method for evaluating cardiac autonomic regulation. HR variability provides information about the sympathetic-parasympathetic autonomic balance. One important clinical application is the measurement of HR variability in patients suffering from acute myocardial infarction. However, HR variability signals extracted from R-R interval time series from ambulatory ECG recordings often contain different amounts of artifact. These false beats can be either of physiological or technical origin. For instance, technical artifact may result from poorly fastened electrodes or be due to motion of the subject. Ectopic beats and atrial fibrillation are examples of physiological artifact. Since ectopic and other false beats are common in the R-R interval time series, they complicate the reliable analysis of HR variability sometimes making it impossible. In conjunction with the increased usage of HR variability analyses, several studies have confirmed the need for different approaches for handling false beats present in the R-R interval time series. The editing process for the R-R interval time series has become an integral part of these analyses. However, the published literature does not contain detailed reviews of editing methods and their impact on HR variability analyses. Several different editing and HR variability signal pre-processing methods have been introduced and tested for the artifact correction. There are several approaches available, i.e., use of methods involving deletion, interpolation or filtering systems. However, these editing methods can have different effects on HR variability measures. The effects of editing are dependent on the study setting, editing method, parameters used to assess HR variability, type of study population, and the length of R-R interval time series. The purpose of this paper is to summarize these pre-processing methods for HR variability signal, focusing especially on the editing of the R-R interval time series.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 391 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 3 <1%
United States 3 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Austria 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
Russia 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Other 1 <1%
Unknown 377 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 81 21%
Student > Master 77 20%
Researcher 48 12%
Student > Bachelor 33 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 24 6%
Other 53 14%
Unknown 75 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 60 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 57 15%
Psychology 50 13%
Sports and Recreations 27 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 21 5%
Other 78 20%
Unknown 98 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 August 2020.
All research outputs
#2,919,351
of 22,668,244 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Physiology
#1,569
of 13,461 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,949
of 244,068 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Physiology
#29
of 309 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,668,244 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,461 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 244,068 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 309 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.