ArticleJMIR mHealth and uHealth2026
The Representation of Different Populations in Studies Assessing the Validity of Consumer Wearable Photoplethysmography-Based Measurements: Scoping Review.
Article in JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 2026. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Consumer wearables are increasingly being integrated into health research for data collection. Although they are attractive to use, the accuracy of their photoplethysmography (PPG)-based measurements can be influenced by user characteristics such as sex, age, BMI, and skin tone. However, our knowledge regarding the validity of these measurements in certain populations, such as those with darker skin tones, seems limited. This is concerning as uncorrected differences in measurement accuracy can lead to health disparities when consumer wearable measurements are used more frequently. A potential cause for the gap in our knowledge regarding consumer wearable validity is the underrepresentation of certain population groups in studies validating PPG-based consumer wearables. Objective: This scoping review aimed to map the representation of different sex, age, BMI, and skin tone groups in studies assessing the validity of PPG-based pulse rate, heart rate variability, blood pressure, peripheral blood oxygen saturation (SpO Methods: A literature search was conducted in Scopus, PubMed, and IEEE Xplore in July 2025. Papers were eligible if they assessed the validity of consumer wearable PPG-based measurements, expressed as the agreement with a reference method. From the included papers, the study population distribution of sex, age, BMI, and Fitzpatrick scale was extracted. To evaluate the representation, percentages of people in specific age, BMI, and skin tone groups were estimated based on reported means and SDs. The median percentage of participants in each population group, as well as the total percentage, is reported. Results: After the removal of duplicates, 734 papers were screened for eligibility. Following title and abstract screening, 238 papers remained, of which 186 passed full-text screening and were included in the review. Most of the studies (n=160) focused on pulse rate. Sex, age, BMI, and Fitzpatrick scale were reported by 179 (96.0%), 178 (96.0%), 101 (54.0%), and 35 (19.0%) out of 186 studies, respectively. While the median representation was 0% (IQR 0%-8%) for both older adults (>65 y) and individuals with obesity (BMI>30 kg/m Conclusions: Based on our results, it can be concluded that older adults and people with underweight, obesity, or darker skin tones are generally underrepresented in studies assessing the validity of consumer wearable PPG-based measurements. Future validation studies should focus more on the representativeness of the study population. This can be achieved by setting a benchmark for representativeness and including study population representatives during the study design process.
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.