TAP reading note: Systematic Review on HRV Reference Values
The review found no generally accepted HRV reference range that can be applied across populations, metrics and recording protocols. Differences in duration, equipment, age and handling of confounders prevented a defensible pooled normal range.
Updated 2026-11-13 · Archived
The scientific content and references belong to this edition. The complete captured record is available to download below; later corrections appear in subsequent editions. Website design and interactive software are not archived here.
What the study found
The review found no generally accepted HRV reference range that can be applied across populations, metrics and recording protocols. Differences in duration, equipment, age and handling of confounders prevented a defensible pooled normal range.
Scope & limitations
Reference-value studies from 1989–2022; individual samples ranged from 20 to 84,772, with ages from one day to 99 years.
The search ended on 2 November 2022 despite publication in 2025. The abstract and several totals say 58 studies, whereas methods/results say 57; this count discrepancy remains unresolved. English/German restriction, inconsistent definitions of health and measurement differences constrain coverage. Study reference distributions are not diagnostic thresholds.
Population & sample
Reference-value studies from 1989–2022; individual samples ranged from 20 to 84,772, with ages from one day to 99 years.
Exposure or intervention
Four-database review of studies reporting reference values in healthy participants; ECG durations ranged from 10 seconds to 24 hours and intermediate windows.
Outcomes
Time-domain, frequency-domain and nonlinear HRV metrics; a descriptive review rather than a pooled diagnostic accuracy estimate.
Time frame
Search on 2 November 2022; published 6 June 2025.
Research funding
Authors reported no external funding.
Research conflicts of interest
Authors declared no conflicts of interest.
Reading scope
PMC full text: methods, results, reference-value comparison, discussion and declarations. The 57/58 count discrepancy is retained; the original studies’ full datasets were not reanalysed.
References
Publication record
TAP-RDN-0086 · v1.0 · English
Author: TAP Editorial Team ·
The Allostasis Project is founded and supported by Resilio.
Record for v1.0 · Updated
Editorial responsibility: TAP Editorial Team
Editorial note
Under the editorial responsibility of the TAP Editorial Team, this publication used AI assistance for content organization and editing.
Download detailed editorial record (JSON) ↓
How responsibilities and review are recorded ↗© The Allostasis Project. All rights reserved. Reproduction or adaptation requires separate permission, subject to applicable legal exceptions.
Download complete edition record (JSON) ↧
Record integrity & available editions
SHA-256: 6bcfdf8be506e479f586b49dbf4ce13a532c3dea429d5942b0b3522adf1c5ce1
Captured: 2026-11-13T05:44:15.527Z
- v1.0 · 2026-11-13