ArticleEuropean heart journal. Digital health2026
Diagnostic performance of two commercially available, PPG-based smartphone applications to detect atrial fibrillation.
Article in European heart journal. Digital health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aims: Atrial fibrillation is the most common sustained cardiac arrhythmia, associated with considerable morbidity and mortality. Early detection is essential for optimal management. While wearable smart devices have shown promise, smartphone applications using photoplethysmography have also emerged as potential screening tools, but their diagnostic accuracy has not been adequately validated. This study aimed to compare the diagnostic performance of two commercially available photoplethysmography-based smartphone applications. Methods and results: In this prospective multicentre study, consecutive patients from three cardiology centres underwent simultaneous recordings with the FibriCheck® and Preventicus Heartbeats® applications and a 12-lead electrocardiogram during hospital admission or outpatient evaluation. Electrocardiograms were independently interpreted by blinded cardiologists. Diagnostic accuracy, rate of inconclusive recordings, technical performance, features, and pricing were compared between the two applications. A total of 206 patients (median age 69.5 years, 64.1% male) with 216 electrocardiograms were analysed; atrial fibrillation was present in 43.1%. Successful photoplethysmography recordings were obtained in 97.7% of FibriCheck (mean attempts 1.2 ± 0.7) and 87.5% of Preventicus Heartbeats (1.6 ± 1.3) measurements. Sensitivity and specificity were 89.0% and 100.0% for FibriCheck, and 86.4% and 99.0% for Preventicus Heartbeats. Inconclusive reading rates (where the algorithm indicated a suspicion of mild arrhythmia) were 8.5% and 11.1%, respectively. Conclusion: Both smartphone applications demonstrated high and comparable diagnostic accuracy for atrial fibrillation detection in a real-world population. These tools represent a viable, non-invasive option for early rhythm screening and follow-up, potentially improving patient outcomes, although further refinement is needed to reduce inconclusive recordings.
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.