Key result
PPG-based smartwatches outperformed ECG-based devices in atrial fibrillation detection, achieving a pooled sensitivity of 97.4% and specificity of 96.6% compared to 83.0% and 88.4% for ECG devices.
Why the study?
Smartwatches have emerged as potential continuous non-invasive tools for early AF detection, but the diagnostic accuracy of ECG- versus PPG-based devices required evaluation and comparison.
Do photoplethysmography (PPG)-based smartwatches improve diagnostic accuracy for atrial fibrillation compared to electrocardiography (ECG)-based smartwatches?
Meta-Analysis (n=16,440)
Do photoplethysmography (PPG)-based smartwatches improve diagnostic accuracy for atrial fibrillation compared to electrocardiography (ECG)-based smartwatches?
Absolute Event Rate: 97.4% vs 83%
PPG-based smartwatches demonstrated superior sensitivity and specificity compared to ECG-based smartwatches for the non-invasive detection of atrial fibrillation.
PPG smartwatches may be prioritized for AF screening; extends meta-analytic evidence favoring photoplethysmography over ECG wearables.
Background: Atrial fibrillation (AF), the most prevalent cardiac arrhythmia, significantly affects morbidity and mortality, making early detection crucial for preventing stroke and heart failure. Recent advancements in wearable technology have introduced smartwatches as potential tools for continuous non-invasive AF detection. Objective: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate and compare the diagnostic accuracy of electrocardiography (ECG)-and photoplethysmography (PPG)-based smartwatches in detecting AF. Methodology: A comprehensive search was conducted on PubMed, Google Scholar, and other databases from 18 August to 23 September 2024, to fetch original studies that evaluated performance metrics of ECG and PPG smartwatches in AF detection. The obtained literature was screened according to preset inclusion and exclusion criteria. For included studies, the random-effects model was used to calculate their pooled sensitivity and specificity in AF detection using Jamovi 2.3.28 software. A significance threshold of P <0.05 was applied to all statistical analyses. Results: Out of the 2564 studies screened, 25 met the inclusion criteria: 11 on PPG and 14 on ECG smartwatches. PPG smartwatches exhibited higher diagnostic performance with a pooled sensitivity of 97.4% (95% CI: 96.5–98.3) and specificity of 96.6% (95% CI: 94.9–98.3). Conversely, ECG smartwatches showed a pooled sensitivity of 83% (95% CI: 78–88) and specificity of 88.4% (95% CI: 84.5–92.2), lower than PPG smartwatches. Conclusion: PPG-based smartwatches outperformed ECG-based devices in AF detection, offering higher sensitivity and specificity. Even though both modalities are effective in AF detection, the considerable variability in ECG smartwatch performance highlights the need for further research and standardization.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Luo et al. (2025) conducted a meta-analysis in Atrial fibrillation (n=16,440). PPG-based smartwatches vs. ECG-based smartwatches was evaluated on Pooled sensitivity for atrial fibrillation detection (95% CI 96.5-98.3). PPG-based smartwatches outperformed ECG-based devices in atrial fibrillation detection, achieving a pooled sensitivity of 97.4% and specificity of 96.6% compared to 83.0% and 88.4% for ECG devices.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: