ArticleCJC open2022
Comparison of Apple Watch vs KardiaMobile: A Tale of Two Devices.
Article in CJC open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Annual assessment of ECG intervals in patients with myotonic dystrophy type 1 using a mobile 6‑lead ECG device: TeleCheck-DM1.International journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature · 2026Article
- The Representation of Different Populations in Studies Assessing the Validity of Consumer Wearable Photoplethysmography-Based Measurements: Scoping Review.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2026Article
- Feasibility and diagnostic agreement of Apple Watch and KardiaMobile electrocardiograms compared with standard 12-lead ECG in children.Scientific reports · 2025Observational
- Patient Driven EKG Device Performance in Adults with Fontan Palliation.Pediatric cardiology · 2025Article
- Synchronous post-exercise electrocardiogram, phonocardiogram, photoplethysmograms and seismocardiogram.Scientific data · 2025Article
- 2025 Japanese Heart Rhythm Society / Japanese Circulation Society Consensus Statement on the Appropriate Use of Ambulatory and Wearable Electrocardiographs.Journal of arrhythmia · 2025Article
- Point-of-Care Testing for Cardiovascular Disease: A Narrative Review.Current medicinal chemistry · 2025Review
- Detection of Arrhythmias Using Smartwatches-A Systematic Literature Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Measuring Suite for Vascular Response Monitoring during Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy by Means of Pulse Transit Time (PTT) Analysis.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Apple Watch-guided diagnosis of AVNRT in a pregnant woman-A case report and literature review.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The Apple Watch Series 4 (AW4) and the KardiaMobile single bipolar lead model (KM) are 2 of the most popular US Food & Drug Administration (FDA)-approved commercial heart trackers. However, a lack of knowledge remains regarding their rhythm-detection accuracy in real-life clinical situations. This paper aims to determine the practicality of using an AW4 or a KM in modern medical practice, by assessing the accuracy of each in identifying heart rhythms and heart rate. Methods: Participants from the Toronto Heart Centre clinic were enrolled from January 2019 to December 2019. They had a 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG), followed by wearing the AW4 watch (OS 5.3), and pressing on the KM electrode plates, within the span of 5 minutes of one another. Each session involved a 12-lead ECG, an ECG from each device, and AW4's photoplethysmography function (APPG). Results: Of 200 participants, 162 (81%) were in sinus rhythm, and 38 (19%) had atrial fibrillation. The rhythm-detection accuracy for sinus rhythm was 100% for the AW4, and 99.03% for the KM. For atrial fibrillation, accuracy was 90.48% for the AW4, and 100% for the KM. The heart rate accuracy for sinus rhythm was 94.39% for the KM, 90.65% for the APPG, and 96.26% for the Apple ECG function. The heart rate accuracy for atrial fibrillation was 91.30% for the KM, 82.61% for the APPG, and 86.96% for the Apple ECG function. Conclusions: Both the AW4 and the KM could reliably detect rhythm and heart rate in real-life clinical situations. However, a nonsignificant trend occurred toward better rhythm detection and accuracy with KM, compared with AW4. The difference is mainly due to artifacts (eg, tremors) and the fit of the strap for AW4. The findings have important implications for how these consumer devices can be used in real-life clinical settings.
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.