ArticleEuropean heart journal. Digital health2025
Optimization and pre-use suitability selection for wrist photoplethysmography-based heart rate monitoring in patients with cardiac disease.
Article in European heart journal. Digital health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Heart Rate Monitors for the Estimation of Physical Activity in Patients With Cardiovascular Disease: Systematic Review.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2026Pooled it
- Accuracy of Optical Heart Rate Measurements for 10 Commercial Wearables in Different Climate Conditions and Activities: Instrument Validation Study.JMIR formative research · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Sensor placement, activity type influencing wrist movements, and individual characteristics impact accuracy of wrist-worn photoplethysmography (PPG)-based heart rate (HR) monitors. This study investigated technical interventions to optimize PPG accuracy in patients with cardiac disease. Methods and results: The Fitbit Inspire 2 PPG monitor was evaluated across three cohorts, using a Polar H10 chest strap as reference: (ⅰ) 10 healthy volunteers performed wrist movements with the monitor placed one or three fingers above the wrist to identify optimal placement; (ⅱ) 10 volunteers engaged in sport activities (walking, running, cycling, rowing); (ⅲ) 30 cardiac rehabilitation patients were monitored during exercise to assess baseline accuracy. Patients with low accuracy [mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) < 10% for <70% of training time] underwent technical interventions (sensor cleaning, forearm shaving, position fixation, and/or relocation to the volar wrist). Placement three vs. one fingers above the wrist was significantly more accurate (mean difference in MAPE: -11.4%, Conclusion: Accurate PPG-based monitoring requires a sensor placed higher on the wrist. Nevertheless, only two-thirds of patients are suitable for such monitoring, with improvement by technical adaptations possible (but impractical) in the others. Therefore, assessing baseline accuracy is a prerequisite before relying on these devices for activity guidance.
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.