ArticleScientific reports2022
Agreement between two photoplethysmography-based wearable devices for monitoring heart rate during different physical activity situations: a new analysis methodology.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Representation of Different Populations in Studies Assessing the Validity of Consumer Wearable Photoplethysmography-Based Measurements: Scoping Review.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2026Article
- Standardized synchronization and validation pipeline for physiological biomarkers across multiple devices.Behavior research methods · 2026Article
- Validation of the ECTemp™ algorithm in construction workers: a comparison of photoplethysmography smartwatch and chest strap heart rate monitors.Environmental research communications · 2026Article
- The accuracy of Apple Watch measurements: a living systematic review and meta-analysis.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- WMRE2030: integrating wearable devices, multi-omics, and artificial intelligence-driven real-time feedback into a daily-scale closed-loop framework for a new era of precision exercise.Frontiers in physiology · 2026Review
- Short-timescale heart-rate fluctuation and acoustic stability show structured coupling at register transitions during singing.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- WATCH-PR: Comparison of the Pulse Rate of a WATCH-Type Blood Pressure Monitor with the Pulse Rate of a Conventional Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitor.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Assessment of Physiological Signals from Photoplethysmography Sensors Compared to an Electrocardiogram Sensor: A Validation Study in Daily Life.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Validity and Reliability of Wearable Technology Devices during Simulated Pickleball Game Play.Sports (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Development and Calibration of a PATCH Device for Monitoring Children's Heart Rate and Acceleration.Medicine and science in sports and exercise · 2024Article
- The use of commercial wrist-worn technology to track physiological outcomes in behavioral interventions.Current opinion in clinical nutrition and metabolic care · 2023Review
- PhysioKit: An Open-Source, Low-Cost Physiological Computing Toolkit for Single- and Multi-User Studies.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Accuracy of a Smartwatch to Assess Heart Rate Monitoring and Atrial Fibrillation in Stroke Patients.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Wearables are being increasingly used to monitor heart rate (HR). However, their usefulness for analyzing continuous HR in research or at clinical level is questionable. The aim of this study is to analyze the level of agreement between different wearables in the measurement of HR based on photoplethysmography, according to different body positions and physical activity levels, and compared to a gold-standard ECG. The proposed method measures agreement among several time scales since different wearables obtain HR at different sampling rates. Eighteen university students (10 men, 8 women; 22 ± 2.45 years old) participated in a laboratory study. Participants simultaneously wore an Apple Watch and a Polar Vantage watch. ECG was measured using a BIOPAC system. HR was recorded continuously and simultaneously by the three devices, for consecutive 5-min periods in 4 different situations: lying supine, sitting, standing and walking at 4 km/h on a treadmill. HR estimations were obtained with the maximum precision offered by the software of each device and compared by averaging in several time scales, since the wearables obtained HR at different sampling rates, although results are more detailed for 5 s and 30 s epochs. Bland-Altman (B-A) plots show that there is no noticeable difference between data from the ECG and any of the smartwatches while participants were lying down. In this position, the bias is low when averaging in both 5 s and 30 s. Differently, B-A plots show that there are differences when the situation involves some level of physical activity, especially for shorter epochs. That is, the discrepancy between devices and the ECG was greater when walking on the treadmill and during short time scales. The device showing the biggest discrepancy was the Polar Watch, and the one with the best results was the Apple Watch. We conclude that photoplethysmography-based wearable devices are suitable for monitoring HR averages at regular intervals, especially at rest, but their feasibility is debatable for a continuous analysis of HR for research or clinical purposes, especially when involving some level of physical activity. An important contribution of this work is a new methodology to synchronize and measure the agreement against a gold standard of two or more devices measuring HR at different and not necessarily even paces.
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.