Observational studyScientific reports2025
Feasibility and diagnostic agreement of Apple Watch and KardiaMobile electrocardiograms compared with standard 12-lead ECG in children.
Observational study in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Wearable and Portable Electrocardiographic Devices as Modern Cardiac Telemetry Solutions in Pediatrics: A Systematic Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
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
Mobile electrocardiogram (ECG) technologies such as the Apple Watch (AW) and KardiaMobile 6 L (KM) are increasingly used in adult cardiology, yet their performance in pediatric populations remains underexplored. This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility, tracing quality, and diagnostic agreement of AW and KM compared to standard 12-lead ECG (S12L) in children. We conducted a prospective observational study in children aged 4–17 years undergoing routine ECG evaluation. All 12 leads were reconstructed using alternative device positioning for both AW and KM. ECGs were independently analyzed by blinded pediatric cardiologists for standard parameters, rhythm interpretation, and tracing quality. A total of 30 patients were enrolled. Median acquisition times differed significantly across devices: 4 min (2;10 min; S12L), 5 min (4;10 min; KM), and 15 min (10;32 min; AW). KM yielded high tracing quality (median 9/10), comparable to standard ECG, while AW showed lower quality (median 6/10). Strong to very strong correlations (r = 0.6–0.96, p < 0.001) with standard ECGs were found for QRS axis, R and S wave voltages, and QT intervals. Both devices detected arrhythmic events. Mobile ECG devices showed strong agreement with standard ECG for selected parameters (e.g., QRS axis, major voltages), while other intervals demonstrated weaker correlation. Findings should be interpreted within the context of a small sample size and feasibility-oriented study. KM demonstrated higher signal quality and faster acquisition, while AW was limited by longer acquisition time and artifact sensitivity. Mobile ECG devices offer promising tools for pediatric arrhythmia diagnostics, although pediatric-specific adaptations are warranted.
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.