ArticleHeart rhythm O22026
Clinical evaluation of a spot-check ECG for the diagnosis of atrial fibrillation.
Article in Heart rhythm O2, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Opportunistic screening of atrial fibrillation (AF) using wearable spot-check electrocardiogram (ECG) devices has emerged for early detection, yet remains limited by concerns for accuracy and false positives. Objective: This study aimed to assess the Masimo W1 wrist-wearable ECG spot-check device in detecting AF and normal sinus rhythm (NSR) while rendering diagnostic ECG waveform quality to support physician overread. Methods: Participants with and without a previous AF diagnosis were prospectively enrolled across 4 US sites to compare the AF and NSR detection performance between the Masimo W1 ECG and a 12-lead ECG reference, plus concordance of clinically relevant ECG waveform features assessed by blinded reviewers. Results: Among 356 participants (mean age 56 years; 60% female), 169 (47.5%) were in NSR and 165 (46.3%) in AF, whereas 22 were excluded as noise outputs (1.7%) or other rhythms (4.5%). Sensitivity and specificity for automated AF detection were 99.3% (95% confidence interval [CI] 96.3-100) and 100% (95% CI 97.8-100), respectively. The inconclusive rate was 5%. AF and NSR detection probabilities were 89.7% and 99.4%, respectively. Qualitative comparison demonstrated 99% (95% CI 98-100.0) agreement with the reference ECG across reviewers and records. Quantitative analysis of ECG waveform features showed a high correlation between the Masimo W1 ECG and lead I of the 12-lead ECG for diagnosing AF. Conclusion: The Masimo W1 ECG demonstrated highly accurate automated AF detection, few noise classifications, and exceptional NSR detection to mitigate concerns over false positives. Qualitative preservation of ECG waveform features supports the requisite physician overread required by practice guidelines.
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.