ArticleHeart rhythm O22025
Diagnostic performance of single-lead electrocardiograms from a smartwatch and a smartring for cardiac arrhythmia detection.
Article in Heart rhythm O2, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- The accuracy of Apple Watch measurements: a living systematic review and meta-analysis.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- An Edge AI Approach for Low-Power, Real-Time Atrial Fibrillation Detection on Wearable Devices Based on Heartbeat Intervals.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Feasibility of smart ring-based remote monitoring in hospitalized patients: evaluation of signal transmission latency and data acquisition continuity.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Wearable devices are widely used for atrial fibrillation (AF) detection, yet most validation studies include only sinus rhythm or AF, likely overestimating diagnostic performance. Objective: This multicenter study assessed the performance of automated AF detection and physician interpretation of single-lead electrocardiograms (SL-ECGs) from the Apple Watch and CART Ring. Methodology: Participants underwent simultaneous 12-lead ECG and SL-ECGs from Apple Watch and CART Ring. Two cardiologists independently adjudicated all ECGs. Apple Watch and CART Ring classified recordings as "AF," "Not AF," or "Unclassified." Diagnostic performance for automated AF detection was evaluated in "worst-case" (all SL-ECGs) and lenient (excluding unclassified SL-ECGs) scenarios. Physician interpretation of SL-ECGs was also compared to 12-lead ECG. Results: Among 483 patients (median age, 66 years; 29% female), 196 (39%) had AF across 3 United Kingdom centers. A total of 2398 ECGs were analyzed. Interobserver variability was excellent (Cohen's kappa: Apple Watch, 0.85; CART Ring, 0.84). In the "worst-case" analysis, CART Ring outperformed Apple Watch (sensitivity, 84.6% vs 69.1%; specificity, 89.9% vs 72.6%). Apple Watch had more unclassified SL-ECGs (20.1%) than CART Ring (1.9%). The lenient analysis showed an improvement in sensitivity (CART Ring, 84.8 %; Apple Watch, 86.4%) and specificity (CART Ring, 91.2%; Apple Watch, 91.7%). Physician interpretation improved diagnostic performance for AF and sinus rhythm but remained limited for other arrhythmias. Conclusion: Apple Watch missed approximately 1 in 3 episodes of AF and a high number of unclassified SL-ECG. CART Ring demonstrated superior performance. Physician interpretation significantly improved AF diagnosis but remained unreliable for other arrhythmias, emphasizing the need for cautious integration of wearable ECGs into clinical practice.
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.