ArticleEuropean journal of pediatrics2024
Validation of smartwatch electrocardiogram intervals in children compared to standard 12 lead electrocardiograms.
Article in European journal of pediatrics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Multi-Tier Validation of a Single-Lead Wearable ECG Signal-Processing Pipeline: Clinical Comparison and Algorithmic Benchmarking on Public Expert-Annotated Databases.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Development and Clinical Evaluation of a Wearable 12-Lead Electrocardiographic Platform with Automated ECG Analysis for Telemedicine Applications.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Multicenter real world validation of on device single lead ECG parameters for remote cardiac assessment.NPJ cardiovascular health · 2026Article
- Monitoring Steps and Heart Rate Using a Withings Smartwatch in Children and Adolescents With Cancer: Validation Study.JMIR cancer · 2026Article
- Wearable and Portable Electrocardiographic Devices as Modern Cardiac Telemetry Solutions in Pediatrics: A Systematic Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Using an Adult-Designed Wearable for Pediatric Monitoring: Practical Tutorial and Application in School-Aged Children With Obesity.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Feasibility and diagnostic agreement of Apple Watch and KardiaMobile electrocardiograms compared with standard 12-lead ECG in children.Scientific reports · 2025Observational
- Smartwatches in childhood: a mixed blessing?-a scoping review.Translational pediatrics · 2025Review
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
Lay people are now able to obtain one-lead electrocardiograms (ECG) using smartwatches, which facilitates documentation of arrhythmias. The accuracy of smartwatch derived ECG intervals has not been validated in children though. Home-based monitoring of ECG intervals using a smartwatch could improve monitoring of children, e.g. when taking QTc prolonging medications. The aim of this study was to validate the ECG intervals measured by smartwatch in comparison to standard 12-lead ECGs in children and adolescents. Prospective study of children (age 5-17 years) at the outpatient clinic of a national pediatric heart center. Patients underwent a smartwatch ECG (ScanWatch, Withings) and a simultaneous standard 12-lead ECG. ECG intervals were measured both automatically and manually from the smartwatch ECG and the 12-lead ECG. Intraclass correlation coefficients and Bland-Altman plots were performed. 100 patients (54% male, median age 12.9 (IQR 8.7-15.6) were enrolled. The ICC calculated from the automated smartwatch and automated 12-lead ECG were excellent for heart rate (ICC 0.97, p < 0.001), good for the PR and QT intervals (ICC 0.86 and 0.8, p < 0.001), and moderate for the QRS duration and QTc interval (ICC 0.7 and 0.53, p < 0.001). When using manual measurements for the smartwatch ECG, validity was improved for the PR interval (ICC 0.93, p < 0.001), QRS duration (ICC 0.92, p < 0.001), QT (ICC 0.95, p < 0.001) and QTc interval (ICC 0.84, p < 0.001).
conclusionAutomated smartwatch intervals are most reliable measuring the heart rate. The automated smartwatch QTc intervals are less reliable, but this may be improved by manual measurements. WHAT IS KNOWN: In adults, smartwatch derived ECG intervals measured manually have previously been shown to be accurate, though agreement for automated QTc may be fair. WHAT IS NEW: In children, automated smartwatch QTc intervals are less reliable than RR, PR, QRS and uncorrected QT interval. Accuracy of the QTc can be improved by peroforming manual measurements.
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.