Key result
Wearables accurately measure HR and RR within practical error margins at rest and during constant load.
Why the study?
The measurement accuracies of combining two types of wearable devices to track physical activity, heart rate, and respiratory rate were unclear.
Do wearable devices accurately measure heart rate and respiratory rate compared to standard methods in healthy men?
Observational (n=10)
No
Do wearable devices accurately measure heart rate and respiratory rate compared to standard methods in healthy men?
Wearable devices can measure heart and respiratory rates within a practical margin of error at rest and during constant load exercise.
Supports wearable HR/RR monitoring in healthy men at rest and constant load; leaves open validation in patients and dynamic conditions.
Objectives: Wearable devices such as fitness trackers have become popular in the healthcare field. Tracking heart rate and respiratory rate, in addition to physical activity, may provide an accurate picture of daily health. We believe that a combination of two types of devices can simultaneously measure and record physical activity, heart rate, and respiratory rate. However, the measurement accuracies of these two types of devices are not clear. This study aimed to determine the measurement accuracies of two wearable devices for heart and respiratory rate measurements. Methods: Ten healthy men performed incremental load tests (ILTs) and constant load tests (CLTs) on a cycle ergometer. The heart and respiratory rates were measured using wrist-worn (Silmee W22, TDK, Japan, Tokyo) and respiratory tracking devices (Spire Stone, Spire Health, San Francisco, CA, USA), respectively. A 12-lead electrocardiograph and the breath-by-breath method were used as external standards for heart and respiratory rates, respectively. Results: Bland-Altman analysis showed that heart rate had a fixed bias at rest and during ILT and CLT and had a proportional bias during CLT. The standard error values of the regression at rest and during CLT were less than 10 bpm for heart rate and less than 5.0 /min for respiratory rate. During ILT, the standard error was greater than 10 bpm for heart rate and approximately 5.0 /min for respiratory rate. Conclusions: The heart and respiratory rate measurements obtained using wearable devices were accurate within the practical margin of error.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Takahashi et al. (2022) conducted an observational in Healthy (n=10). Wearable devices (Silmee W22 and Spire Stone) vs. 12-lead ECG and breath-by-breath method was evaluated on Measurement accuracy of heart rate and respiratory rate (standard error of estimates). Wearable devices accurately measured heart rate and respiratory rate within practical margins of error at rest and during constant load tests, with standard errors of less than 10 bpm and 5.0 breaths/min, respectively.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: