Key result
Garmin vivosmart 5 shows strong heart rate agreement with Holter ECG and ~1 bpm bias.
Why the study?
The reliability and validity of consumer-grade smartwatches with a photoplethysmograph for measuring heart rate in healthy participants under free-living conditions remained unclear.
Does a smartwatch with a photoplethysmograph accurately measure heart rate compared to a Holter electrocardiograph in healthy adults under free-living conditions?
Observational (n=10)
Does a smartwatch with a photoplethysmograph accurately measure heart rate compared to a Holter electrocardiograph in healthy adults under free-living conditions?
A consumer-grade smartwatch with PPG demonstrated strong agreement with Holter ECG for heart rate monitoring in healthy adults during daily activities, despite a slight tendency to underestimate heart rate.
Although consumer-grade smartwatches with a photoplethysmograph (PPG) can measure heart rate, their reliability and validity in healthy participants under free-living conditions remain unclear. Therefore, this study compared the heart rates measured by a smartwatch with PPG and a clinically accepted Holter electrocardiograph in healthy adult participants under completely free-living conditions. Ten participants wore a Holter recorder on their left chest and a Garmin vivosmart 5 on their non-dominant wrist simultaneously for 72-96 h. Averages were calculated every 2 min from the data obtained, and timestamps were used for alignment. Agreement between the measurements taken by the two devices was verified using intraclass correlation and Bland-Altman analyses. Error trends for Garmin vivosmart 5 were examined using linear regression analysis. The overall intraclass correlation coefficient range was 0.819-0.937 (mean: 0.902), indicating strong agreement. The mean bias was 1.16 bpm, and the mean limit of agreement was ±12.4 (7.87-20.6) bpm. Furthermore, the linear regression line intercept was negative for all participants, indicating that Garmin vivosmart 5 tended to underestimate the heart rate; however, the slope was positive and close to 0. Overall, the smartwatch maintained a certain accuracy level under fluctuating heart rates and demonstrated reasonable reliability during sleep or daily activities.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tan et al. (2026) conducted an observational in Healthy (n=10). Garmin vivosmart 5 smartwatch vs. Holter electrocardiograph was evaluated on Agreement between heart rate measurements (intraclass correlation coefficient) (Mean ICC 0.902). The Garmin vivosmart 5 smartwatch demonstrated strong agreement with Holter ECG for heart rate measurement (mean ICC 0.902, mean bias 1.16 bpm) in healthy adults under free-living conditions.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: