Key result
HRV4Training and OURA accurately measured resting heart rate variability with mean absolute percent errors of 4.10% and 6.84%, respectively, whereas CameraHRV demonstrated poor accuracy with an error of 112.36%.
Why the study?
Rapid commercialization of commercial off-the-shelf wearable devices has led to a lack of independent, third-party accuracy verification for physiological metrics such as heart rate and heart rate variability.
Do commercial wearable devices accurately measure resting heart rate and heart rate variability compared to multi-lead ECG in healthy young adults?
Cross-Sectional (n=5)
No
Do commercial wearable devices accurately measure resting heart rate and heart rate variability compared to multi-lead ECG in healthy young adults?
Commercial wearable devices vary significantly in their accuracy for measuring heart rate variability, with some devices showing high concordance with multi-lead ECG while others perform poorly.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
COTS wearables need independent validation before clinical HR or rMSSD use; leaves open their reliability for research applications.
Stone et al. (2021) conducted a cross-sectional in Healthy (n=5). Commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) wearable devices vs. Multi-lead electrocardiogram (mECG) was evaluated on Mean absolute percent error (MAPE) for root mean square of successive differences (rMSSD). HRV4Training and OURA accurately measured resting heart rate variability with mean absolute percent errors of 4.10% and 6.84%, respectively, whereas CameraHRV demonstrated poor accuracy with an error of 112.36%.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: