ArticlePhysiological reports2025
Validation of nocturnal resting heart rate and heart rate variability in consumer wearables.
Article in Physiological reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Lactiplantibacillus plantarum Lp815 improves sleep and increases urinary GABA in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of sleep disturbance.Scientific reports · 2026Trial
- Wearable-Based Assessment for Relapse Prediction Following Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation for Depression: Protocol for a Feasibility Study (WARN-D Study).JMIR research protocols · 2026Article
- Guidelines for rigor and reproducibility of heart rate variability within human cardiovascular research.American journal of physiology. Heart and circulatory physiology · 2026Review
- Temporal dissociation between heart rate recovery and heart rate variability recovery after submaximal exercise in healthy older adults.European review of aging and physical activity : official journal of the European Group for Research into Elderly and Physical Activity · 2026Article
- Digital Health Monitoring and Intervention Suite for Stress in Frontline Nurses: Prospective Cohort Trial.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- Viewpoint: Next-Generation Sensor Technologies for Studying Mental Health.IEEE sensors letters · 2026Article
- Dynamic Sleep-Derived Heart Rate and Heart Rate Variability Features Associated with Glucose Metabolism Status: An Exploratory Feature-Selection Study Using Consumer Wearables.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Objective prenatal sleep and adverse childhood experiences in a proof-of-concept observational mixed methods study.iScience · 2026Article
- Contextual equivalence for accurate comparison of wearables requires transparency.Physiological reports · 2025Article
- Accurate comparison of wearables requires contextual equivalence.Physiological reports · 2025Article
- Validation of nocturnal resting heart rate and heart rate variability in consumer wearables.Physiological reports · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Modern wearable devices report several heart rate-based nocturnal health metrics, including resting heart rate (RHR) and heart rate variability (HRV). The purpose of this study was to assess the validity of nocturnal RHR and HRV from five wearable devices (Garmin Fenix 6, Oura Generation 3, Oura Generation 4, Polar Grit X Pro, & Whoop 4.0) against an electrocardiogram (ECG) reference. Thirteen healthy adults (6 females) wore an ECG reference and multiple wearables simultaneously during sleep, totaling 536 nights. Interdevice accuracy varied significantly (p < 0.05). For RHR, Oura Gen 3 (Lin's Concordance [CCC] = 0.97, mean absolute percentage error [MAPE] = 1.67 ± 1.54%) and Gen 4 (CCC = 0.98, MAPE = 1.94 ± 2.51%) demonstrated the highest accuracy, outperforming Polar's poor (CCC = 0.86, MAPE = 2.71 ± 2.75%) and WHOOP's moderate agreement (CCC = 0.91, MAPE = 3.00 ± 2.15%). Garmin was excluded from RHR analyses due to methodological inconsistencies. For HRV, Oura devices provided the highest accuracy; Oura Gen 4 (CCC = 0.99, MAPE = 5.96 ± 5.12%), Oura Gen 3 (CCC = 0.97, MAPE = 7.15 ± 5.48%). WHOOP showed moderate accuracy (CCC = 0.94, MAPE = 8.17 ± 10.49%), followed by poor agreement from both Garmin (CCC = 0.87, MAPE = 10.52 ± 8.63%) and Polar (CCC = 0.82, MAPE = 16.32 ± 24.39%). Oura devices showed the highest agreement for RHR and HRV, and WHOOP showed acceptable agreement, whereas Garmin Fenix and Polar demonstrated lower concordance, highlighting the importance of continuous validation and providing valuable benchmarks for clinicians, researchers, and consumers.
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.