Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40834291›Full record

ArticlePhysiological reports2025

Validation of nocturnal resting heart rate and heart rate variability in consumer wearables.

Michael B Dial, Margaret E Hollander, Emaly A Vatne, Angela M Emerson, Nathan A Edwards, Joshua A Hagen

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Guidelines for rigor and reproducibility of heart rate variability within human cardiovascular research.American journal of physiology. Heart and circulatory physiology · 2026
    Review
  4. 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 · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Michael B DialHuman Performance Collaborative, Office of Research, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0675-4463
Margaret E HollanderHuman Performance Collaborative, Office of Research, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA.
Emaly A VatneHuman Performance Collaborative, Office of Research, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA.
Angela M EmersonHuman Performance Collaborative, Office of Research, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA.
Nathan A EdwardsHuman Performance Collaborative, Office of Research, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA.
Joshua A HagenHuman Performance Collaborative, Office of Research, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA.

Funding

DOD | USAF | AMC | Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) S-194-11T-001
6 · The paper itself

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

Heart RateSleepWearable Electronic DevicesAdultElectrocardiographyFemaleHumansMaleReproducibility of ResultsRestYoung Adultconsumer wearableshealth monitoringheart rate variabilitysleep monitoringwearable technology

Identifiers

PMID40834291
PMCPMC12367097

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.