Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
PulseExploreClubsResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeClubsExplore
October 2, 2024Open Access

The arm-worn device on the upper arm showed excellent accuracy (systematic bias = -0.05 bpm, MAE = 1.43, MAPE = 1.35%) and reliability (CCC > 0.98), while the wrist-worn device showed lower validity (systematic bias = 2.56 bpm, MAE = 6.41 bpm, MAPE = 6.82%).

View Full Paper
Ask AI
Bookmark
Share

Why the study?

Continuous validation of wearable heart rate accuracy across activities is needed because performance may vary with wearing position, motion, or device updates.

Do optical photoplethysmography wearable devices accurately and reliably measure heart rate compared to an ECG chest strap in healthy participants during various physical activities?

Comparison

Optical PPG wearable devices (Polar Verity Sense and Polar Vantage V2) vs Polar H10 ECG chest strap

Design

Analytical validation study

Authors

TSTheresa SchweizerRGRahel Gilgen-Ammann

Discussion

Loading...

Member takes

Overview

Emphasizes need for ongoing wearable HR validation; leaves open reliability across activities and device factors.

Structured PICO

Do optical photoplethysmography wearable devices accurately and reliably measure heart rate compared to an ECG chest strap in healthy participants during various physical activities?

P
Population
16 healthy participants, mean age 27.4 ± 5.8 years.
I
Intervention
Optical photoplethysmography (PPG) wearable devices (Polar Verity Sense on upper arm/forearm and Polar Vantage V2 on wrist) worn during 9 physical activities of varying intensities.
C
Comparator
Gold-standard Polar H10 electrocardiogram (ECG) chest strap.
O
Outcome
Accuracy and reliability of heart rate measurement (assessed via systematic bias, mean absolute error, mean absolute percentage error, and concordance correlation coefficient).surrogate

Arm-worn optical heart rate monitors provide highly accurate and reliable measurements comparable to ECG chest straps across various physical activities, whereas wrist-worn devices are more susceptible to motion artifacts.

Cite This Study

Schweizer et al. (2024) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a70cab28031ec7bb1dc94cfhttps://doi.org/10.2196/preprints.67110
View Full Paper
Ask AI
Bookmark
Share

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Wrist-Worn and Arm-Worn Wearables for Monitoring Heart Rate During Sedentary and Light-to-Vigorous Physical Activities: Device Validation Study2025 · 20 citations
  2. 2Impact of Anatomical Placement on the Accuracy of Wearable Heart Rate Monitors During Rest and Various Exercise Intensities2025 · 1 citations
  3. 3Validity of Four Consumer‐Grade Optical Heart Rate Sensors for Assessing Volume and Intensity Distribution of Physical Activity2024 · 14 citations
  4. 4Validation of a Wearable Sensor Prototype for Measuring Heart Rate to Prescribe Physical Activity: Cross-Sectional Exploratory Study (Preprint)2024
  5. 5Validity of the Wrist-Worn Polar Vantage V2 to Measure Heart Rate and Heart Rate Variability at Rest2021 · 48 citations