SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Intrarater Reliability and Agreement of Blood Pressure, Arterial Stiffness, and Heart Rate Variability Assessments in Patients With Parkinson's Disease.

Arq Bras Cardiol · 2024-10-01

DOI: 10.36660/abc.20240132PMID: 39536196

Open accessresearch-article; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

To assess the intrarater reliability and agreement of blood pressure (BP), arterial stiffness, and heart rate variability (HRV) assessments in patients with Parkinson`s disease (PD). Twenty patients with PD visited the laboratory three times, during which brachial and central BP (auscultatory and applanation tonometry, respectively), arterial stiffness (carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity and augmentation index), and HRV assessments were performed at rest. Brachial and central systolic BP presented greater values on visit 1 when compared to visits 2 and 3 (122±13 vs. 116±16 vs. 120±15, p=0.029). There were no significant differences (p>0.05) among the experimental visits for other parameters. Brachial and central BP showed an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) above 0.842 and a standard error of measurement (SEM) lower than 5.0%. Bland-Altman plots indicated low agreement between visits 1 and 2 and good agreement between visits 2 and 3. Arterial stiffness indices exhibited ICC values between 0.781 and 0.886, and SEM ranged from 7.3% to 25.2%. Bland-Altman plots indicated moderate to good agreement among visits for arterial stiffness parameters. HRV indices presented ICC values ranging from 0.558 to 0.854 and SEM values ranging from 5.1% to 76.0%. Bland-Altman plots indicated moderate agreement among visits for HRV parameters. In PD patients, brachial and central BP present low intrarater reliability and agreement between visits 1 and 2 and good intrarater reliability and agreement between visits 2 and 3. In general, arterial stiffness and HRV assessments present acceptable intrarater reliability and agreement among visits, except for cardiac sympathovagal balance.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.