ArticleBioengineering (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Validation of a New and Straightforward Algorithm to Evaluate Signal Quality during ECG Monitoring with Wearable Devices Used in a Clinical Setting.
Article in Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- High-Reliability Signal Quality Validation for Biosignals Using Sensor Fusion and Software Indices.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Integration of EHR and ECG Data for Predicting Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation in Stroke Patients.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Big data approaches for novel mechanistic insights on sleep and circadian rhythms: a workshop summary.Sleep · 2025Article
- Comparison of diagnostic accuracy of electrocardiogram-based versus photoplethysmography-based smartwatches for atrial fibrillation detection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2025Article
- Neonatal supraventricular tachycardia: current diagnostic approaches and emerging technologies.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2025Review
- A Cloud Infrastructure for Health Monitoring in Emergency Response Scenarios.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWearable devices represent a new approach for monitoring key clinical parameters, such as ECG signals, for research and health purposes. These devices could outcompete medical devices in terms of affordability and use in out-clinic settings, allowing remote monitoring. The major limitation, especially when compared to implantable devices, is the presence of artifacts. Several authors reported a relevant percentage of recording time with poor/unusable traces for ECG, potentially hampering the use of these devices for this purpose. For this reason, it is of the utmost importance to develop a simple and inexpensive system enabling the user of the wearable devices to have immediate feedback on the quality of the acquired signal, allowing for real-time correction.
methodsA simple algorithm that can work in real time to verify the quality of the ECG signal (acceptable and unacceptable) was validated. Based on simple statistical parameters, the algorithm was blindly tested by comparison with ECG tracings previously classified by two expert cardiologists.
resultsThe classifications of 7200 10s-signal samples acquired on 20 patients with a commercial wearable ECG monitor were compared. The algorithm has an overall efficiency of approximately 95%, with a sensitivity of 94.7% and a specificity of 95.3%.
conclusionsThe results demonstrate that even a simple algorithm can be used to classify signal coarseness, and this could allow real-time intervention by the subject or the technician.
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.