Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36812630›Full record

ArticlePLOS digital health2022

Assessment of Apple Watch Series 6 pulse oximetry and electrocardiograms in a pediatric population.

Lauren Littell, Lisa Roelle, Aarti Dalal, George F Van Hare, William B Orr, Nathan Miller, Jennifer N Avari Silva

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLOS digital health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 21% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. The Apple Watch spONPJ digital medicine · 2023
    Article
  14. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Lauren LittellDepartment of Pediatrics, St. Louis Children's Hospital, St. Louis, Missouri, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8449-5896
Lisa RoelleDivision of Pediatric Cardiology, Department of Pediatrics, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri, United States of America.
Aarti DalalDivision of Pediatric Cardiology, Department of Pediatrics, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6380-1900
George F Van HareDivision of Pediatric Cardiology, Department of Pediatrics, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri, United States of America.
William B OrrDivision of Pediatric Cardiology, Department of Pediatrics, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8581-6484
Nathan MillerElectrophysiology Laboratory, St Louis Children's Hospital, St. Louis, Missouri, United States of America.
Jennifer N Avari SilvaDivision of Pediatric Cardiology, Department of Pediatrics, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri, United States of America.
Washington University in St. Louis · USSt. Louis Children's Hospital · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRecent technologic advances have resulted in increased development and utilization of direct-to-consumer cardiac wearable devices with various functionality. This study aimed to assess Apple Watch Series 6 (AW6) pulse oximetry and electrocardiography (ECG) in a cohort of pediatric patients.

methodsThis single-center, prospective study enrolled pediatric patients ≥ 3kg and having an ECG and/or pulse oximetry (SpO2) as part of their planned evaluation. Exclusion criteria: 1) non-English speaking patients and 2) patients in state custody. Simultaneous tracings were obtained for SpO2 and ECG with concurrent standard pulse oximeter and 12-lead ECG. AW6 automated rhythm interpretations were compared to physician over-read and categorized as accurate, accurate with missed findings, inconclusive (automated interpretation: "inconclusive"), or inaccurate.

resultsA total of 84 patients were enrolled over a 5-week period. 68 patients (81%) were placed into the SpO2 and ECG arm, with 16 patients (19%) placed into the SpO2 only arm. Pulse oximetry data was successfully collected in 71/84 (85%) patients and ECG data in 61/68 (90%). ΔSpO2 between modalities was 2.0±2.6% (r = 0.76). ΔRR was 43±44msec (r = 0.96), ΔPR 19±23msec (r = 0.79), ΔQRS 12±13msec (r = 0.78), and ΔQT 20±19msec (r = 0.9). The AW6 automated rhythm analysis yielded a 75% specificity and found: 1) 40/61 (65.6%) "accurate", 2) 6/61 (9.8%) "accurate with missed findings", 3) 14/61 (23%) "inconclusive", and 4) 1/61 (1.6%) incorrect.

conclusionThe AW6 can accurately measure oxygen saturation when compared to hospital pulse oximeters in pediatric patients and provide good quality single lead ECGs that allow for accurate measurement of RR, PR, QRS, and QT intervals with manual interpretation. The AW6-automated rhythm interpretation algorithm has limitations for smaller pediatric patients and patients with abnormal ECGs.

Identifiers

PMID36812630
PMCPMC9931318
OpenAlexW4292657603

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.