ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Validity and Reliability of Movesense HR+ ECG Measurements for High-Intensity Running and Cycling.
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A Systematic Review of Chest-Worn Sensors in Cardiac Assessment: Technologies, Advantages, and Limitations.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Pooled it
- Comparative performance of wearable ECG devices for rhythm monitoring in endurance athletes.American journal of preventive cardiology · 2026Article
- Monitoring Training Adaptation and Recovery Status in Athletes Using Heart Rate Variability via Mobile Devices: A Narrative Review.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Portable Holter with Cloud-Based Learning Analytics for Real-Time Health Monitoring.Journal of biomedical physics & engineering · 2025Article
- Assessment of Physiological Signals from Photoplethysmography Sensors Compared to an Electrocardiogram Sensor: A Validation Study in Daily Life.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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Low-cost, portable devices capable of accurate physiological measurements are attractive tools for coaches, athletes, and practitioners. The purpose of this study was primarily to establish the validity and reliability of Movesense HR+ ECG measurements compared to the criterion three-lead ECG, and secondarily, to test the industry leader Garmin HRM. Twenty-one healthy adults participated in running and cycling incremental test protocols to exhaustion, both with rest before and after. Movesense HR+ demonstrated consistent and accurate R-peak detection, with an overall sensitivity of 99.7% and precision of 99.6% compared to the criterion; Garmin HRM sensitivity and precision were 84.7% and 87.7%, respectively. Bland-Altman analysis compared to the criterion indicated mean differences (SD) in RR' intervals of 0.23 (22.3) ms for Movesense HR+ at rest and 0.38 (18.7) ms during the incremental test. The mean difference for Garmin HRM-Pro at rest was -8.5 (111.5) ms and 27.7 (128.7) ms for the incremental test. The incremental test correlation was very strong (
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.