ArticleJMIR formative research2025
Comparative Evaluation of Consumer Wearable Devices for Atrial Fibrillation Detection: Validation Study.
Article in JMIR formative research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Atrial Fibrillation Burden: Assessment, Clinical Significance, and Therapeutic Implications.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Consumer Smartwatch Technology in Health and Performance Research: Validity, Limitations, and Real-World Applications.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Monitoring of ventricular rate in atrial fibrillation patients through an app based on pulse-plethysmography.Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2026Article
- From Biosignals to Bedside: A Review of Real-Time Edge Machine Learning for Wearable Health Monitoring.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- The accuracy of Apple Watch measurements: a living systematic review and meta-analysis.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Diagnostic Accuracy of Wearable ECG Devices for Atrial Fibrillation and ST-Segment Changes: A Systematic Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- An Edge AI Approach for Low-Power, Real-Time Atrial Fibrillation Detection on Wearable Devices Based on Heartbeat Intervals.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Fibricheck detection capabilities for atrial fibrillation (FDA-AF): a multicenter validation study.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- Accuracy of Smartwatches in the Detection of Atrial Fibrillation: A Systematic Review and Diagnostic Meta-Analysis.JACC. Advances · 2025Article
- Review
- Validation of nocturnal resting heart rate and heart rate variability in consumer wearables.Physiological reports · 2025Article
- Wearable Technology in Cardiology: Advancements, Applications, and Future Prospects.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Consumer-oriented wearable devices (CWDs) such as smartphones and smartwatches have gained prominence for their ability to detect atrial fibrillation (AF) through proprietary algorithms using electrocardiography or photoplethysmography (PPG)-based digital recordings. Despite numerous individual validation studies, a direct comparison of interdevice performance is lacking. Objective: This study aimed to evaluate and compare the ability of CWDs to distinguish between sinus rhythm and AF. Methods: Patients exhibiting sinus rhythm or AF were enrolled through a cardiology outpatient clinic. The participants were instructed to perform heart rhythm measurements using a handheld 6-lead electrocardiogram (ECG) device (KardiaMobile 6L), a smartwatch-derived single-lead ECG (Apple Watch), and two PPG-based smartphone apps (FibriCheck and Preventicus) in a random sequence, with simultaneous 12-lead reference ECG as the gold standard. Results: A total of 122 participants were included in the study: median age 69 (IQR 61-77) years, 63.9% (n=78) men, 25% (n=30) with AF, 9.8% (n=12) without prior smartphone experience, and 73% (n=89) without experience in using a smartwatch. The sensitivity to detect AF was 100% for all devices. The specificity to detect sinus rhythm was 96.4% (95% CI 89.5%-98.8%) for KardiaMobile 6L, 97.8% (95% CI 91.6%-99.5%) for Apple Watch, 98.9% (95% CI 92.5%-99.8%) for FibriCheck, and 97.8% (95% CI 91.5%-99.4%) for Preventicus (P=.50). Insufficient quality measurements were observed in 10.7% (95% CI 6.3%-17.5%) of cases for both KardiaMobile 6L and Apple Watch, 7.4% (95% CI 3.9%-13.6%) for FibriCheck, and 14.8% (95% CI 9.5%-22.2%) for Preventicus (P=.21). Participants preferred Apple Watch over the other devices to monitor their heart rhythm. Conclusions: In this study population, the discrimination between sinus rhythm and AF using CWDs based on ECG or PPG was highly accurate, with no significant variations in performance across the examined devices.
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.