Do commercially available heart rate monitors provide valid and stable heart rate measurements compared to simultaneous ECG readings?
Heart rate monitors using conventional chest electrodes provide valid readings compared to ECG, whereas those using earlobe photocells or other electrodes are generally inadequate.
In brief: The validity of 13 commercially available heart rate (HR) monitors was assessed by comparing the monitored values with simultaneous ECG readings. Stability, as well as validity, was measured using several ergometric devices, and functionality was evaluated by analyzing the practical aspects of each device. Results indicate excellent correlations between readings obtained by ECG and HR monitors using conventional chest electrodes to measure electrical activity of the heart. Most of the monitors using other types of electrodes or using an earlobe photocell to measure opacity of blood flow were inadequate. The authors point out functional differences in the monitors to help potential users choose the best one to fit their needs.
Léger et al. (Sun,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: