Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42467418›Full record

ArticleJMIR cardio2026

Mobile Apps for Heart Rate Variability: App Store Search and Content Analysis.

Eline de Jager, Brian Caulfield, Evgenia Angelidi, Sinead Holden

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR cardio, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Eline de JagerSchool of Public Health, Physiotherapy, and Sports Science, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin, Ireland, +35317163432.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0004-4940-5460
Brian CaulfieldSchool of Public Health, Physiotherapy, and Sports Science, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin, Ireland, +35317163432.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0290-9587
Evgenia AngelidiSchool of Public Health, Physiotherapy, and Sports Science, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin, Ireland, +35317163432.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0007-4583-1018
Sinead HoldenSchool of Public Health, Physiotherapy, and Sports Science, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin, Ireland, +35317163432.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7314-2152

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Heart rate variability (HRV) is a noninvasive indicator of autonomic nervous system activity that is increasingly used for health and performance monitoring. Digital and mobile technologies are increasingly providing opportunities for remote HRV monitoring outside of laboratory-based settings. Objective: This study aimed to describe the landscape of mobile apps that measure, analyze, and provide feedback on HRV, with a focus on how HRV is measured, analyzed, interpreted, and communicated to users. A secondary aim was to assess the transparency of these apps, including the extent to which they disclose the evidence underpinning their HRV metrics and feedback. Methods: This study was an app store search and content analysis. Searches were conducted in the Google Play Store and Apple iTunes Store. Apps were eligible for inclusion if they had functionality to record, analyze, or provide feedback on HRV and were available in English. Data were extracted from app descriptions, screenshots, websites, and, where necessary, contact with developers. Data were extracted on app metadata (developer, release and update dates, and pricing), alongside information about HRV measurement, analysis, and feedback. This included the type of sensor used; HRV measurement characteristics (sensor placement, recording duration, and body position or standardization procedures); methods to calculate and interpret HRV (ie, metrics derived and how they were interpreted for users); and additional app functionality such as reminders, the ability to log self-reported stressors, and the type of feedback or guidance provided based on HRV. We used previously published criteria for assessing the quality of information on the internet, which included authorship, scientific attribution, currency of updates, and data privacy. Results: Of 746 apps identified, 206 met eligibility criteria. Of these, 132 were primary measurement apps, 59 were aggregators, and 15 were hybrid. Photoplethysmogram was the most common sensing modality (n=117, 56.8%), followed by multiple sensors (n=60, 29.1%). Full data extraction across app metadata and HRV measurement and analysis data was only achievable for 93 (45.1%) apps, representing a transparent subset with sufficient available information for content analysis. The most commonly reported HRV metrics were root mean square of successive differences (n=51) and SD of normal-to-normal intervals (n=48), while frequency-domain power (n=22) and low frequency to high frequency ratios (n=15) were less common. Most apps presented data as personalized trends or individualized ranges (76/93, 81.7%), emphasizing user-specific context rather than isolated values. Although 86% (80/93) offered contextual guidance (eg, readiness or recovery scores), many relied on proprietary algorithms that were not transparently described, limiting independent assessment of how these scores were derived and validated. Conclusions: Consumer HRV apps are widely available but vary considerably in how data are collected, processed, and contextualized. While many offer personalized trends and guidance, methodological transparency is often limited, particularly regarding the proprietary algorithms underlying the feedback scores.

Indexed as

Heart RateMobile ApplicationsDigital HealthHumansTelemedicineautonomic nervous systemdevicesdigital healthmHealthmobile healthphotoplethysmographysmartphone appswearable electronic devices

Identifiers

PMID42467418
PMCPMC13378409

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.