Why the study?
AF burden increases stroke risk, which can often be prevented by earlier detection and timely anticoagulation, and smartphones could offer a simple, non-invasive, cost-effective detection solution.
Does smartphone-based photoplethysmography accurately detect atrial fibrillation compared to standard electrocardiogram?
Does smartphone-based photoplethysmography accurately detect atrial fibrillation compared to standard electrocardiogram?
Smartphone-based photoplethysmography demonstrates high sensitivity and specificity for detecting atrial fibrillation, making it a viable tool for early AF screening, particularly in patients over 65.
Supports smartphone PPG for AF screening in older adults; extends single-study data with high pooled accuracy.
Background: Atrial fibrillation (AF) burden is strongly associated with an increased risk of stroke, which, in most cases, can be prevented through earlier detection of AF and the timely initiation of anticoagulation therapy. Smartphone devices can provide a simple, non-invasive, cost-effective early AF detection solution. Methods: PubMed, Embase, and Scopus databases were searched for studies comparing smartphone-based photoplethysmography (PPG) with standard electrocardiogram for AF detection. A bivariate random-effects model with a 95% confidence interval (CI) was applied to generate the summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve. Results: Fourteen studies were included, comprising 5,090 patients with an AF prevalence of 31.6%. The pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.96 (95% CI, 0.93–0.97) and 0.97 (95% CI, 0.95–0.98). The area under the SROC curve was 0.98 (95% CI, 0.94–0.99). The diagnostic odds ratio was 960 (95% CI, 439–2,104), with significant heterogeneity ( I 2 = 51%). The projected positive and negative predictive values were 66.5% and 99.7%, respectively, in the elderly population aged >65 years and 39.2% and 99.9% in the general population. Conclusion: Smartphone-based PPG demonstrated relatively high sensitivity and specificity and appears capable of ruling out AF. Patients aged >65 are more likely to benefit from AF screening.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Barbosa et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: