ArticleEuropean heart journal. Digital health2026
Comparative analysis of 6-lead and single-lead consumer-grade electrocardiograms: diagnostic accuracy, numerical agreement, and inter-rater reliability.
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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aims: Consumer-grade electrocardiogram (ECG) devices enable accessible rhythm monitoring. Recently developed six-lead handheld ECGs promise improved signal quality and diagnostic performance; however, comparative validation remains limited. Using 12-lead ECGs as reference, we compared diagnostic performance and quantitative agreement of a 6-lead and single-lead consumer ECGs. Methods and results: In this prospective single-centre study, 194 arrhythmia-clinic patients (498 paired recordings) underwent simultaneous 10-s 12-lead and 30-s 6-lead ECG acquisition, followed by sequential 30-s single-lead recording. Two blinded electrophysiologists interpreted ECGs. Diagnostic performance for predefined rhythm categories (sinus rhythm, atrial/ventricular premature complex, atrial fibrillation/flutter/tachycardia, atrioventricular block, others) was assessed by sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy. Waveform agreement was evaluated using Bland-Altman analysis and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) accounting for repeated measures. Sensitivity was higher for the 6-lead ECG for ectopic beats, atrial flutter, and first-degree atrioventricular block, with comparable specificity across categories. Overall diagnostic accuracy was 98.6% (95% confidence interval, 97.4-99.6) for the 6-lead and 96.9% (94.7-98.7) for the single-lead ECG. Agreement with the 12-lead ECG was higher for the 6-lead device for PR interval (ICC 0.89; 0.85-0.92) and QRS amplitude (0.96; 0.94-0.97) than for the single-lead device (0.57; 0.48-0.63 and 0.04; -0.13-0.21, respectively). Bland-Altman analysis demonstrated generally narrower limits of agreement for the 6-lead ECG. Findings were consistent in patient-level sensitivity analyses. Conclusion: The 6-lead handheld ECG demonstrated a higher point estimate for diagnostic accuracy and closer agreement with the 12-lead ECG than the single-lead smartwatch ECG, supporting its use for arrhythmia assessment and interval measurement.
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.