Key result
A pulse-wearable sensor prototype showed excellent agreement with the Polar H10 chest strap for resting heart rate (ICC=0.96) and mean test heart rate (ICC=0.92) during a functional test.
Why the study?
Wearable sensors are rapidly evolving for physiological monitoring, but newly designed prototypes require validation against reference devices during functional testing.
Does a wearable sensor prototype accurately measure heart rate compared to a reference chest strap in healthy young adults during a functional test?
Population
20 healthy participants aged between 20 and 30 years without contraindications for physical exercise
Comparison
Wearable sensor prototype vs Polar H10 HR chest strap sensor
Design
Cross-sectional exploratory study
Authors
Loading...
Supports prototype feasibility for HR monitoring in healthy young adults; leaves open validation in clinical populations.
Cross-Sectional (n=20)
Does a wearable sensor prototype accurately measure heart rate compared to a reference chest strap in healthy young adults during a functional test?
Mean Difference: -2.6 (95% CI -3.5–-1.8)
The tested pulse-wearable sensor prototype is a valid tool for monitoring heart rate at rest, during functional tests, and during recovery compared with a reference chest strap.
Loro et al. (2024) conducted a cross-sectional in Healthy (n=20). Pulse wearable sensor prototype (PPG) vs. Polar H10 HR chest strap sensor was evaluated on Mean difference in rest heart rate (MD -2.6, 95% CI -3.5 to -1.8). A pulse-wearable sensor prototype showed excellent agreement with the Polar H10 chest strap for resting heart rate (ICC=0.96) and mean test heart rate (ICC=0.92) during a functional test.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: