The Empatica E4 wristband demonstrated similar signal quality to a standard holter monitor 85% of the time, while the holter performed better 5% of the time.
Observational
Does the Empatica E4 portable photoplethysmogram device provide comparable signal quality to a standard Holter monitor in healthy volunteers?
The Empatica E4 wristband showed similar signal quality to a standard Holter monitor 85% of the time in healthy volunteers, supporting its potential for further research in detecting atrial fibrillation.
A preliminary study into the signal quality of the Empatica's E4 portable photoplethysmogram device as validation for further research on using the device to detect the heart arrhythmia atrial fibrillation. In order to pursue this research, it was necessary to verify the quality of the data produced by the E4 device against a device currently used by clinicians to detect atrial fibrillation. This was done by having healthy volunteers wear both the Empatica E4 and the clinician standard device while following standard clinician procedure for atrial fibrillation diagnosis. The device was compared qualitatively against General Electric's SEER Light Extend Recorder holter portable electrocardiogram. The analysis was done by non-experts at varying academic levels. The primary reviewer's results showed similar data quality between both devices 85% of the time and the holter performed better 5% of the time.
McCarthy et al. (2016) conducted an observational in Healthy volunteers. Empatica E4 wristband vs. General Electric SEER Light Extend Recorder holter was evaluated on Qualitative signal quality. The Empatica E4 wristband demonstrated similar signal quality to a standard holter monitor 85% of the time, while the holter performed better 5% of the time.