ReviewCureus2025
Photoplethysmography in Diverse Skin Tones: Evaluating Bias in Smartwatch Health Monitoring.
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Guidelines for rigor and reproducibility of heart rate variability within human cardiovascular research.American journal of physiology. Heart and circulatory physiology · 2026Review
- Article
- Waking up to wearables: the next era of blood pressure measurement for primary care?The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2026Article
- Accuracy of Optical Heart Rate Measurements for 10 Commercial Wearables in Different Climate Conditions and Activities: Instrument Validation Study.JMIR formative research · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Heart disease remains one of the most pressing global health burdens, and the growth of wearable technology has introduced new possibilities for prevention and monitoring. Smartwatches commonly use photoplethysmography (PPG) to estimate heart rate by detecting changes in light reflected from the skin. However, melanin's absorption of green light raises concerns about measurement accuracy in individuals with darker skin tones. This narrative review, conducted in accordance with the PRISMA extension for narrative reviews, examined studies published between May 2017 and May 2025. Searches were performed in PubMed, Google Scholar, and the American College of Cardiology (ACC) databases, yielding 50 records, of which 23 met the inclusion criteria. Only English-language studies were included, and duplicates were removed through automated and manual screening. Findings demonstrated significant variability across devices. One validation study of 60 participants reported that a major smartwatch brand showed mean heart rate differences of less than 5 bpm across skin tones (95% CI: -3.2 to +4.1). By contrast, other brands underestimated heart rate by 10-15 bpm at rest and by more than 20% during vigorous activity in darker-skinned users (n = 75, p < 0.01). Devices using alternate operating systems displayed inconsistent calibration, with error rates reaching up to 12%. Large-scale studies involving over 400,000 participants reported greater than 95% sensitivity for atrial fibrillation detection, though stratification by skin tone was not conducted. Skin-tone-related bias in smartwatch PPG sensors poses risks that extend beyond fitness tracking to arrhythmia detection, hypertension monitoring, and telehealth reliability. To improve equity, standardized validation protocols stratified by Fitzpatrick skin type and activity level are essential, alongside regulatory mandates for inclusive testing. Future research should include longitudinal studies across diverse cohorts to ensure wearable health technologies become reliable tools for all populations.
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.