Cited by 175Atrial Fibrillation Management and OutcomesECG Monitoring and AnalysisNon-Invasive Vital Sign Monitoring

Clinical Validation of 5 Direct-to-Consumer Wearable Smart Devices to Detect Atrial Fibrillation

Open access
Mannhart, Diego, Lischer, Mirko, Knecht, Sven, du Fay de Lavallaz, Jeanne, Strebel, Ivo, Serban, Teodor, Vögeli, David, Schaer, Beat +5 more·2023·JACC: Clinical Electrophysiology

Abstract

Background Multiple smart devices capable to detect atrial fibrillation (AF) are presently available. Sensitivity and specificity for the detection of AF may differ between available smart devices, and this has not yet been adequately investigated. Objectives The aim was to assess the accuracy of 5 smart devices in identifying AF compared with a physician-interpreted 12-lead electrocardiogram as the reference standard in a real-world cohort of patients. Methods We consecutively enrolled patients presenting to a cardiology service at a tertiary referral center in a prospective, diagnostic study. Results We prospectively analyzed 201 patients (31% women, median age 66.7 years). AF was present in 62 (31%) patients. Sensitivity and specificity for the detection of AF were comparable between devices: 85% and 75% for the Apple Watch 6, 85% and 75% for the Samsung Galaxy Watch 3, 58% and 75% for the Withings Scanwatch, 66% and 79% for the Fitbit Sense, and 79% and 69% for the AliveCor KardiaMobile, respectively. The rate of inconclusive tracings (the algorithm was unable to determine the heart rhythm) was 18%, 17%, 24%, 21%, and 26% for the Apple Watch 6, Samsung Galaxy Watch 3, Withings Scan Watch, Fitbit Sense, and AliveCor KardiaMobile (P < 0.01 for pairwise comparison), respectively. By manual review of inconclusive tracings, the rhythm could be determined in 955 (99%) of 969 single-lead electrocardiograms. Regarding patient acceptance, the Apple Watch was ranked first (39% of participants). Conclusions In this clinical validation of 5 direct-to-consumer smart devices, we found differences in the amount of inconclusive tracings diminishing sensitivity and specificity of the smart devices. In a clinical setting, manual review of tracings is required in about one-fourth of cases.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jacep.2022.09.011

Cites

20 of 20 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The reliability of AI-based screening tools for LVSD is limited by the presence of noise in data collected from wearable and handheld devices.

    “but the reliability of such tools is limited by the presence of noise in data collected from wearable and handheld devices12,13.”

    From Detection of left ventricular systolic dysfunction from single-lead electrocardiography adapted for portable and wearable devices (2023) · cites this paper as [13]

    The Discussion says technical artefacts, including noise, affected the devices’ automated interpretation of single-lead ECGs. The study evaluates atrial fibrillation detection, however, not AI-based screening for left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD), so it does not establish that limitation for LVSD tools. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Studies have shown high rates of poor signal quality among data recorded by wearable devices, and significant variation in quality across different manufacturers.

    “Studies have shown high rates of poor signal quality among data recorded by wearable devices, and significant variation in quality across different manufacturers13.”

    From Detection of left ventricular systolic dysfunction from single-lead electrocardiography adapted for portable and wearable devices (2023) · cites this paper as [13]

    The Discussion reports that 17%–26% of recordings were labeled inconclusive by device algorithms and says these rates differed significantly across devices. But inconclusive does not necessarily mean poor signal quality: the Results say cardiologists could interpret 95% of those tracings, and only 1% of 825 recordings were noninterpretable because of low quality or noise. The paper therefore supports variation in algorithm outcomes, not high rates of poor-quality signals across manufacturers. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 21 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mannhart, D., Lischer, M., Knecht, S., du Fay de Lavallaz, J., Strebel, I., Serban, T., Vögeli, D., Schaer, B., Osswald, S., Mueller, C., Kühne, M., Sticherling, C., & Badertscher, P.
Affiliations
University of Basel (CH)
Corresponding author
Badertscher, Patrick
Venue
JACC: Clinical Electrophysiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2023-02
Volume
9
Issue
2
Pages
232-242
ISSN
2405-500X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4317376731
Cited by
175
References
21
Citations by year
2026: 41 · 2025: 63 · 2024: 52 · 2023: 19
FWCI
34.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • JACC. Clinical electrophysiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Beckman Coulter Foundation
  • Boston Scientific Corporation
  • MicroPort
  • Pfizer
  • Freiwillige Akademische Gesellschaft
  • AstraZeneca
  • Knowles Teacher Initiative
  • Bayer
  • Universitätsspital Basel
  • Biotronik
  • Universität Basel
  • Sphingotec GmbH
  • Abbott Laboratories
  • Medtronic
  • Daiichi-Sankyo
  • Biosense Webster
  • Schweizerische Herzstiftung
  • Foundation for Cardiovascular Research
  • Siemens
  • Boehringer Ingelheim
  • Amgen
  • Singulex
  • Roche
  • Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung
  • Johnson and Johnson
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Atrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › ECG Monitoring and Analysis
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Non-Invasive Vital Sign Monitoring
Keywords
atrial fibrillation, wearable smart devices, Apple Watch, single-lead ECG, device accuracy, sensitivity and specificity, patient acceptance
MeSH terms
Wearable Electronic Devices, Aged, Algorithms, Atrial Fibrillation, Electrocardiography, Female, Humans, Male, Prospective Studies

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review