Trial reportSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Experimental Analysis on the Effect of Contact Pressure and Activity Level as Influencing Factors in PPG Sensor Performance.
Trial report 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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mechanical Contact Conditions in Wearable Reflectance Photoplethysmography: Scoping Review.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2026Article
- Photoplethysmography acceleration indices as digital biomarkers of cardiometabolic health.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Photoplethysmographic (PPG) sensors are small and cheap wearable sensors which open the possibility of monitoring physiological parameters such as heart rate during normal daily routines, ultimately providing valuable information on health status. Despite their potential and distribution within wearable devices, their accuracy is affected by several influencing parameters, such as contact pressure and physical activity. In this study, the effect of contact pressure (i.e., at 20, 60, and 75 mmHg) and intensity of physical activity (i.e., at 3, 6, and 8 km/h) were evaluated on a sample of 25 subjects using both a reference device (i.e., an electrocardiography-based device) and a PPG sensor applied to the skin with controlled contact pressure values. Results showed differing accuracy and precision when measuring the heart rate at different pressure levels, achieving the best performance at a contact pressure of 60 mmHg, with a mean absolute percentage error of between 3.36% and 6.83% depending on the physical activity levels, and a Pearson's correlation coefficient of between 0.81 and 0.95. Plus, considering the individual optimal contact pressure, measurement uncertainty significantly decreases at any contact pressure, for instance, decreasing from 15 bpm (at 60 mmHg) to 8 bpm when running at a speed of 6 km/h (coverage factor k = 2). These results may constitute useful information for both users and manufacturers to improve the metrological performance of PPG sensors and expand their use in a clinical context.
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.