Do wrist-worn photoplethysmography devices provide valid heart rate measurements compared to ECG or chest strap?
Wrist-worn photoplethysmography devices demonstrate acceptable validity for measuring heart rate during sleep, rest, and treadmill activities, but are less accurate during resistance training and cycling.
Heart rate (HR), when combined with accelerometry, can dramatically improve estimates of energy expenditure and sleep. Advancements in technology, via the development and introduction of small, low-cost photoplethysmography devices embedded within wrist-worn consumer wearables, have made the collection of heart rate (HR) under free-living conditions more feasible. This systematic review and meta-analysis compared the validity of wrist-worn HR estimates to a criterion measure of HR (electrocardiography ECG or chest strap). Searches of PubMed/Medline, Web of Science, EBSCOhost, PsycINFO, and EMBASE resulted in a total of 44 articles representing 738 effect sizes across 15 different brands. Multi-level random effects meta-analyses resulted in a small mean difference (beats per min, bpm) of -0.40 bpm (95 confidence interval (CI) -1.64 to 0.83) during sleep, -0.01 bpm (-0.02 to 0.00) during rest, -0.51 bpm (-1.60 to 0.58) during treadmill activities (walking to running), while the mean difference was larger during resistance training (-7.26 bpm, -10.46 to -4.07) and cycling (-4.55 bpm, -7.24 to -1.87). Mean difference increased by 3 bpm (2.5 to 3.5) per 10 bpm increase of HR for resistance training. Wrist-worn devices that measure HR demonstrate acceptable validity compared to a criterion measure of HR for most common activities.
Zhang et al. (Fri,) studied this question.