| Title |
Möglichkeiten und Einschränkungen der Herzfrequenzmessung und der Analyse der Herzfrequenzvariabilität mittels mobiler Messgeräte
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Herzschrittmachertherapie + Elektrophysiologie, February 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00399-016-0419-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Stefan Sammito, Irina Böckelmann |
| Abstract |
Heart rate (HR) and heart rate variability (HRV) have been established in the last few years as a non-invasive method for recording the demands on the cardiovascular system. The development enables us today to measure the interbeat intervals with different technologies for calculating HR and HRV. This review is based on a systematic literature search in PubMed for validity of different measurement techniques and their pros and cons for the measurement of HR and the analysis of HRV. Measurement equipment for recording of interbeat intervals should have a high storage capacity and a sampling rate of 1000 Hz ideally. The quality criteria of freedom of feedback (small, little disruptive), robustness and a non-invasive measurement (e. g. freeze-electrodes or sensors) have to be fulfilled. In addition to the Holter ECG, several portable heart rate watch and chest belt systems provide adequate validity and good applicability. The Holter ECG is still the gold standard for the measurement of NN intervals and for the analysis of HRV. Modern heart rate watches show a good correlation with the conformance of freedom from discomfort, robustness and non-invasive measurement and are a good alternative due to the lower disturbance of test persons. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 33% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 33% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 26 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 23% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 15% |
| Researcher | 4 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 8% |
| Other | 3 | 12% |
| Unknown | 4 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 5 | 19% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 15% |
| Sports and Recreations | 4 | 15% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 2 | 8% |
| Engineering | 2 | 8% |
| Other | 5 | 19% |
| Unknown | 4 | 15% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 22 February 2016.
All research outputs
#13,703,064
of 23,815,455 outputs
Outputs from Herzschrittmachertherapie + Elektrophysiologie
#54
of 155 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#191,897
of 404,536 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Herzschrittmachertherapie + Elektrophysiologie
#1
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,815,455 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 155 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% 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 404,536 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them