This study reviews the scientific use of chest-strap wearables, analyzing their advantages and limitations, following PRISMA guidelines. Eligible studies assessed chest-strap devices in adults and reported physiological outcomes such as heart rate, heart rate variability, R–R intervals, or electrocardiographic waveform morphology. Studies involving implanted devices, wrist-worn wearables, or lacking validation against reference standards were excluded. Searches were conducted in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and ScienceDirect for studies published in the last 10 years. The quality of the studies was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool, and results were synthesized narratively. Thirty-two studies were included. The most frequently evaluated devices were the Polar H10 and Zephyr BioHarness 3.0, which showed strong correlations with electrocardiography at rest and during light-to-moderate activity. Reported limitations included motion artefacts, poor strap placement, sweating, and degradation of the skin–electrode interface. None of the devices had CE or FDA approval for clinical use, and most studies were conducted in controlled settings, limiting generalizability. Ergonomic concerns such as discomfort during prolonged wear and restricted mobility were also noted. Overall, chest-strap sensors showed good validity and were widely used in validation studies. However, technical refinements and large-scale field trials are needed for broader clinical and occupational application. This review is registered in PROSPERO and is part of the SIREN project.
Machado et al. (2025) studied this question.