Skip to main content

Table 1 Evaluation points (P) of STARDHRV followed by Dobbs et al. [23] and modified by Grässler et al. [24]

From: Objective assessment of mental stress in individuals with different levels of effort reward imbalance or overcommitment using heart rate variability: a systematic review

  

Evaluation point

Points

Assessment standard

1

Title or Abstract

Identification as a study of validation

1

Reported

0

Not reported

2

Abstract

Structured summary of study objective. Design. Methods. Results. Conclusions

1

Yes

0.5

Yes. But not structured

0

Not reported.

3

Introduction

Scientific and practical background. including the intended use of the index device/software

1

Complete. Including the application of the HRV method

0.5

With limitations available

0

Insufficient background.

4

Study objectives and hypotheses described

1

Study objectives and hypothesis

0.5

Study objectives without hypothesis

0

Not reported

5

Methods

Study uses within-subject design

1

Reported

0

Not reported

6

Intended sample size and how it was determined (e.g., G*Power 3)

1

Reported

0

Not reported

7

Eligibility criteria including specific restrictions (medical use, gender, age, activity level or body mass index (BMI))

1

Reported for health, medical use, gender, age, activity, and BMI

0.5

Reported in some criteria less than 1P

0

Not reported

8

Pre-testing guidelines reported (e.g., limitations to caffeine, alcohol, and physical activity)

1

Reported for limitations to caffeine, alcohol, and physical activity

0.5

Reported in some criteria less than 1P

0

Not reported

9

Setup of reference standard and index device described in sufficient detail to allow replication (e.g., hardware/software such as brand and electrode configuration)

1

Sufficient description. A replication is possible.

0.5

Limited description. A replication is partially possible

0

Insufficient description. Replication is not possible

10

Description of environmental conditions (e.g., temperature, humidity, lights on or off, and time of day) and posture

1

Temperature + time of day or same time of day + body position

0.5

Reported in some criteria less than 1P

0

Not reported

11

A stabilization period prior to sampling was described

1

Yes. With information about when and how long

0.5

Yes. With information about when or how long

0

Not reported

12

The raw sampling rate and length of collection are described

1

Sampling rate + length of collection

0.5

Only length of collection

0

Not reported

13

Acknowledgment of breathing (e.g., controlled or not controlled)

1

Reported

0

Not reported

14

Description of how estimates or comparison measures were calculated (e.g., ES, LOA, Pearson’s r, or ICC)

1

Reported

0

Not reported

15

Reasons for missing data. along with percentage missing (e.g., equipment. persistent ectopy) and how it was handled

1

Reasons for missing data + percentage + handling

0.5

Reported in some criteria less than 1P.

0

Not reported

16

Interbeat artifact identification method (e.g., algorithm and manual inspection)

1

Manual inspection of artifacts

0.5

Automatically without manual correction

0

Not reported.

17

Artifact cleaning methods and percentage of beats corrected

1

Description method (e.g., smoothing or decimation) and percentage

0.5

Reported in some criteria less than 1P

0

Not reported

18

Description of metrics used and software/script for HRV calculation (log transformation)

1

Reported

0

Not reported

19

Specification of frequency bands used and how they were calculated (e.g., fast Fourier transform (FFT) or autoregressive modeling (AR))

1

Reported

0

Not reported

20

Results

Baseline demographics of participants

1

Reported

0

Not reported.

21

Mean ± SD along with at least one estimate of precision (e.g., LOA, Pearson’s r, or ICC)

1

p values and effect size

0.5

Only p values

0

Not reported

22

Discussion

Study limitations (e.g., sources of potential bias, confounding variables, statistical uncertainty, and generalizability)

1

In detail (if necessary also as extra section)

0.5

Discussed, but not in detail

0

Not reported

23

Implications for practice including the intended use

1

Detailed, giving practical recommendations (e.g., clientele and how often), extra section

0.5

Discussed, but not in detail

0

No statement or simple statement “We have seen differences and suggest that”

24

Other information

Where the full study protocol can be accessed if not fully described

1

Reported

0

Not reported

25

Sources of funding and other support; role of funders

1

Information about funding and conflict of interest

0.5

Funding. conflict of Interest or acknowledgement

0

Not reported