ArticleJournal of atrial fibrillation
Diagnostic Utility of Smartwatch Technology for Atrial Fibrillation Detection - A Systematic Analysis.
Article in Journal of atrial fibrillation. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Can consumer wearables support outpatient health monitoring for patients with post-acute infection syndromes? A systematic umbrella review of accuracy, validity, and clinical utility data.PLOS digital health · 2026Article
- Cardiogenic Shock: Clinical Management, Outcomes and Future Directions.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2026Review
- Fusion of Generative AI Techniques and Machine Learning Models to Generate and Investigate Biosignals for Glucose Sensors.ACS omega · 2025Article
- Accuracy of Smartwatches in the Detection of Atrial Fibrillation: A Systematic Review and Diagnostic Meta-Analysis.JACC. Advances · 2025Article
- Screening and Risk Analysis of Atrial Fibrillation After Radiotherapy for Breast Cancer: Protocol for the Cross-Sectional Cohort Study "Watch Your Heart (WATCH)".JMIR research protocols · 2025Article
- Wearables and Atrial Fibrillation: Advances in Detection, Clinical Impact, Ethical Concerns, and Future Perspectives.Cureus · 2025Review
- Screening and detection of atrial fibrillation in primary care: current practice and future perspectives.European heart journal supplements : journal of the European Society of Cardiology · 2024Article
- Early Diagnosis of Cardiovascular Diseases in the Era of Artificial Intelligence: An In-Depth Review.Cureus · 2024Review
- Review
- Diagnosis and Management of Atrial Fibrillation in Acute Ischemic Stroke in the Setting of Reperfusion Therapy: Insights and Strategies for Optimized Care.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2023Review
- How to use digital devices to detect and manage arrhythmias: an EHRA practical guide.Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSmartphone technologies have been recently developed to assess heart rate and rhythm, but their role in accurately detecting atrial fibrillation (AF) remains unknown.
objectiveWe sought to perform a meta-analysis using prospective studies comparing Smartwatch technology with current monitoring standards for AF detection (ECG, Holter, Patch Monitor, ILR).
methodsWe performed a comprehensive literature search for prospective studies comparing Smartwatch technology simultaneously with current monitoring standards (ECG, Holter, and Patch monitor) for AF detection since inception to November 25th, 2019. The outcome studied was the accuracy of AF detection. Accuracy was determined with concomitant usage of ECG monitoring, Holter monitoring, loop recorder, or patch monitoring.
resultsA total of 9 observational studies were included comparing smartwatch technology, 3 using single-lead ECG monitoring, and six studies using photoplethysmography with routine AF monitoring strategies. A total of 1559 patients were enrolled (mean age 63.5 years, 39.5% had an AF history). The mean monitoring time was 75.6 days. Smartwatch was non-inferior to composite ECG monitoring strategies (OR 1.06, 95% CI 0.93 - 1.21, p=0.37), composite 12 lead ECG/Holter monitoring (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.62 - 1.30, p=0.57) and patch monitoring (OR 1.28, 95% CI 0.84 - 1.94, p=0.24) for AF detection. The sensitivity and specificity for AF detection using a smartwatch was 95% and 94%, respectively.
conclusionsSmartwatch based single-lead ECG and photoplethysmography appear to be reasonable alternatives for AF monitoring.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.