ArticleDigital health
Continuous heart rate measurements in patients with cardiac disease: Device comparison and development of a novel artefact removal procedure.
Article in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Heart Rate Monitors for the Estimation of Physical Activity in Patients With Cardiovascular Disease: Systematic Review.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2026Pooled it
- A Systematic Review of Chest-Worn Sensors in Cardiac Assessment: Technologies, Advantages, and Limitations.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Pooled it
- The Representation of Different Populations in Studies Assessing the Validity of Consumer Wearable Photoplethysmography-Based Measurements: Scoping Review.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Heart rate (HR) monitors could objectively measure physical activity intensity in patients with cardiac disease. However, thorough validation of HR monitors in cardiac populations during daily life, compared to gold-standard Holter monitoring, remains limited. Photoplethysmography (PPG)-based HR data provides near-continuous data, spanning longer periods, but improved algorithms to filter unreliable data are needed. Methods: This observational, prospective pilot study compared the accuracy of two wearables for HR monitoring (electrocardiogram [ECG]-based Polar H10 chest strap and PPG-based Fitbit Inspire 2 wrist tracker) against Holter monitoring in 15 patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), heart failure (HF) and coronary artery disease referred for cardiac rehabilitation (CR). All devices were worn simultaneously for 24 h. We developed and assessed an artefact removal procedure (ARP) using logistic regression machine learning models to detect unreliable PPG data. Results: The ECG-based chest strap showed a strong correlation ( Conclusions: While ECG-based monitors provide HR data with clinical acceptable accuracy, PPG-based monitors present accuracy challenges. Our machine learning procedure showed potential to filter unreliable PPG-based HR data, which could help measure physical activity intensity in cardiac disease continuously.
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.