Cited by 246Heart Rate Variability and Autonomic ControlCardiac Health and Mental HealthCardiac electrophysiology and arrhythmias

Heart rate variability in the prediction of mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of healthy and patient populations

Open access
Jarczok, Marc N., Weimer, Katja, Braun, Christin, Williams, DeWayne P., Thayer, Julian F., Gündel, Harald O., Balint, Elisabeth M.·2022·Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews

Abstract

Measures of heart rate variability (HRV) as a predictor of risk of disease and mortality have been investigated from various perspectives for more than six decades. The aim of the present comprehensive meta-analysis is to examine eight different HRV parameters to determine their association with all-cause and cardiac mortality. A total of 32 studies and two individual participant datasets (IPD) with 37 samples and 38,008 participants were included. Lower HRV parameter values were significant predictors of higher mortality across different ages, sex, continents, populations and recording lengths. Most of the examined parameters showed comparable hazard ratios (HR). IPD sub-analysis for heart rate corrected HRV parameters confirmed the strong association between HRV and all-cause mortality. Meta-regressions revealed no effect modifier for HRs extracted from covariate-adjusted studies. Sub-analyses of studies comparing the lowest quartile of 5-min root mean square of successive differences (RMSSD) vs. the other quartiles yielded a combined HR of 1.56 (95% CI: 1.32-1.85). The applicability of HRV measurement in preventive settings is discussed.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2022.104907

Cites

112 of 112 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 114 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Jarczok, M. N., Weimer, K., Braun, C., Williams, D. P., Thayer, J. F., Gündel, H. O., & Balint, E. M.
Affiliations
  • Universität Ulm (DE)
  • University of California, Irvine (US)
Corresponding author
Jarczok, Marc N.
Venue
Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2022-12
Volume
143
Pages
104907
ISSN
0149-7634 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4304943826
Cited by
246
References
114
Citations by year
2026: 74 · 2025: 71 · 2024: 76 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 1
FWCI
8.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (R01AG013196, R01HL36310)
  • U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
  • National Institute on Aging (5-PO1-AG20166-04)
  • Medical Research Council (G0902037, MR/K013351/1)
  • British Heart Foundation (RG/13/2/30098)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Heart Rate Variability and Autonomic Control
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Cardiac Health and Mental Health
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Cardiac electrophysiology and arrhythmias
Keywords
heart rate variability, mortality prediction, all-cause mortality, cardiac mortality, RMSSD, heart rate correction, risk prediction, healthy population, individual patient data
MeSH terms
Heart, Heart Rate, Humans, Proportional Hazards Models

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review