ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Validity of Heart Rate Variability Measured with Apple Watch Series 6 Compared to Laboratory Measures.
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. 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.
- The Representation of Different Populations in Studies Assessing the Validity of Consumer Wearable Photoplethysmography-Based Measurements: Scoping Review.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2026Article
- Article
- Wearable technology-derived digital biomarkers for non-invasive assessment of erectile dysfunction: a cross-sectional pilot study.International urology and nephrology · 2026Article
- Agreement Between Reserve Heart Rate, Perceived Exertion and Wint Index During HIIT Using a Low-Cost ANT+ Armband in University Students.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Heart rate variability-guided endurance training: evaluating strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats for load prescription and adjustment.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2026Article
- Monitoring Training Adaptation and Recovery Status in Athletes Using Heart Rate Variability via Mobile Devices: A Narrative Review.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Activity Type Effects Signal Quality in Electrocardiogram Devices.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Beyond the lab coat: methodological challenges in space life sciences.Frontiers in physiology · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We assessed the test validity of the Apple Watch series 6 measure of heart rate variability (HRV) by comparing it with the reference measure assessed via a Biopac 3-lead electrocardiogram (ECG). We recruited 78 healthy adults (aged 20-75 years). HRV was measured using an in-lab protocol while resting, talking, watching a movie, before walking, and after walking. We conducted a synchronized countdown for each condition to guarantee that the recordings would be aligned between the two devices by using event markers in the Biopac at the exact time that the Apple Watch Breathe app began and ended. We assessed test validity using the Bland-Altman method, and both precision and accuracy were estimated using Lin's concordance correlation coefficient. The highest level of agreement and concordance between devices occurred during rest. We observed near-perfect agreement for R-R intervals and beats per minute (BPM) measures, with mean absolute percentage errors (MAPE) of 1.15% during resting conditions. We observed moderate levels of agreement and concordance for N-N intervals at rest with a MAPE of 31.31% during resting conditions. The Apple Watch provides a high level of validity for measuring R-R intervals and BPM in healthy adults. Further research is needed to determine if HRV measures with the Apple Watch offer a significant opportunity for the surveillance of CVD risk.
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.