SynthesisSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2025
A Systematic Review of Chest-Worn Sensors in Cardiac Assessment: Technologies, Advantages, and Limitations.
Synthesis 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 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Speed-Dependent Assessment of E-Textile-Based Sensor Technology: Validity of the Prevayl Wearable Heart Rate Monitor.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Wearable devices and cardiovascular health: revolutionizing remote monitoring and disease prevention.European heart journal · 2026Review
- Modeling heart rate (HR) dynamics to reconstruct missing HR data in trail running.BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation · 2026Article
- Emergency Clinical Decision for Sports Injury Management: A Wearable Sensor-Driven Framework from Training to Rehabilitation.Biosensors · 2026Review
- Integrating Sensory Perception and Wearable Monitoring to Promote Healthy Aging: A New Frontier in Nutritional Personalization.Nutrients · 2026Review
- Interpreting heart rate variability in clinical context: a framework for understanding a multidimensional autonomic biomarker.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Review
- WMRE2030: integrating wearable devices, multi-omics, and artificial intelligence-driven real-time feedback into a daily-scale closed-loop framework for a new era of precision exercise.Frontiers in physiology · 2026Review
- Case Report: Metabolic adaptations to intensive aerobic training in Parkinson's disease: autonomic and physiopathological response.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2026Article
- Finger pulse monitoring is a reliable and valid tool for measuring heart rate during exercise among adolescents in lab and school settings.BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation · 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study reviews the scientific use of chest-strap wearables, analyzing their advantages and limitations, following PRISMA guidelines. Eligible studies assessed chest-strap devices in adults and reported physiological outcomes such as heart rate, heart rate variability, R-R intervals, or electrocardiographic waveform morphology. Studies involving implanted devices, wrist-worn wearables, or lacking validation against reference standards were excluded. Searches were conducted in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and ScienceDirect for studies published in the last 10 years. The quality of the studies was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool, and results were synthesized narratively. Thirty-two studies were included. The most frequently evaluated devices were the Polar H10 and Zephyr BioHarness 3.0, which showed strong correlations with electrocardiography at rest and during light-to-moderate activity. Reported limitations included motion artefacts, poor strap placement, sweating, and degradation of the skin-electrode interface. None of the devices had CE or FDA approval for clinical use, and most studies were conducted in controlled settings, limiting generalizability. Ergonomic concerns such as discomfort during prolonged wear and restricted mobility were also noted. Overall, chest-strap sensors showed good validity and were widely used in validation studies. However, technical refinements and large-scale field trials are needed for broader clinical and occupational application. This review is registered in PROSPERO and is part of the SIREN project.
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.