Meu espaço Começar anamnese
Biblioteca Piantare · metanálise · 2018

Aplicativos de celular que medem a frequência cardíaca por fotopletismografia: metanálise

Smartphone Apps Using Photoplethysmography for Heart Rate Monitoring: Meta-Analysis

Autores De Ridder B, Van Rompaey B, Kampen JK, Haine S, Dilles TRevista JMIR cardioAno 2018DOI 10.2196/cardio.8802PubMed 31758768
AEvidência forte. Metanálise, revisão sistemática ou diretriz: o resultado se repete em muitos estudos. Como classificamos
Resumo da Piantare

O que o estudo mostra

A fotopletismografia detecta o pulso pela variação de luz absorvida pela pele; no celular, usa a lanterna e a câmera. Os autores reuniram 14 estudos que compararam aplicativos desse tipo com métodos validados de medir a frequência cardíaca. Não houve diferença significativa entre as medidas, com diferença média de cerca de 0,3 batimento por minuto. Em adultos, a correlação com o método de referência foi sempre de 0,90 ou mais. Em crianças, os resultados variaram conforme o ponto de medição e a frequência. A conclusão é que esses aplicativos concordam bem com métodos validados em adultos em repouso e com ritmo cardíaco normal, mas ainda não estão validados para crianças.

Resumo escrito pelo Time Piantare a partir do estudo, para leitura em português. Não substitui o artigo nem uma consulta. Conteúdo educativo, não é diagnóstico.

Ler o estudo completoLer em portuguêsVer na fonte original

Onde a Piantare cita este estudo

Texto completo

Abstract

Background

Smartphone ownership is rising at a stunning rate. Moreover, smartphones prove to be suitable for use in health care due to their availability, portability, user-friendliness, relatively low price, wireless connectivity, far-reaching computing capabilities, and comprehensive memory. To measure vital signs, smartphones are often connected to a mobile sensor or a medical device. However, by using the white light-emitting diode as light source and the phone camera as photodetector, a smartphone could be used to perform photoplethysmography (PPG), enabling the assessment of vital signs.

Objective

The objective of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the available evidence on the use of smartphone apps to measure heart rate by performing PPG in comparison with a validated method.

Methods

PubMed and ISI Web of Knowledge were searched for relevant studies published between January 1, 2009 and December 7, 2016. The reference lists of included studies were hand-searched to find additional eligible studies. Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) Diagnostic Test Study checklist and some extra items were used for quality assessment. A fixed effects model of the mean difference and a random effects model of Pearson correlation coefficient were applied to pool the outcomes of the studies.

Results

In total, 14 studies were included. The pooled result showed no significant difference between heart rate measurements with a smartphone and a validated method (mean difference −0.32; 99% CI −1.24 to 0.60; P=.37). In adults, the Pearson correlation coefficient of the relation between heart rate measurement with a smartphone and a validated method was always ≥.90. In children, the results varied depending on measuring point and heart rate. The pooled result showed a strong correlation that was significant (correlation coefficient .951; 95% CI 0.906-0.975; P<.001). The reported limits of agreement showed good agreement between a smartphone and a validated method. There was a moderately strong significant negative correlation between the year of publication of the included studies and the mean difference (r=−.69; P<.001).

Conclusions

Smartphone apps measuring heart rate by performing PPG appear to agree with a validated method in an adult population during resting sinus rhythm. In a pediatric population, the use of these apps is currently not validated.

Introduction

Background

Smartphone ownership rises year by year. Advanced economies still have the highest smartphone ownership rates. Smartphone ownership in countries with an emerging and developing economy, however, is rising at a stunning rate [1].

Due to their availability, portability, user-friendliness, relatively low price, wireless connectivity, far-reaching computing capabilities, and comprehensive memory, smartphones prove to be suitable for use in health care [2-4]. A wide offer of health and medical applications exist from diagnostic tools over professional education to apps supporting patients and health consumers [3,5]. In the field of cardiological literature, there has been a growing interest in mobile apps since 2003 [6].

Measuring Vital Signs

Most of the studies focus on measuring vital signs using a smartphone. To this end, smartphones are mostly connected to a mobile sensor or medical device [6]. A majority of smartphones receive the information through built-in Bluetooth technology. They often process the information before transferring data to a server. At server level, the information can be further processed, organized, and analyzed to create a report for the user [2,4]. Hence, this type of monitoring requires several sensors or a separate device, which can be quite expensive [4].Another way to measure heart rate is by utilizing a pulse oximeter using photoplethysmography (PPG). In total, 2 key components are essential to create a PPG waveform: a light source to illuminate the subcutaneous tissue and a photodetector to detect the changes in light intensity [7]. Jonathan en Leahy demonstrated that a smartphone could be used to perform PPG. The white light-emitting diode can be used as light source and the phone camera as photodetector. The 2 components should be positioned next to each other for reflection mode PPG; in comparison, in transmission mode PPG, the photodetector is placed opposite to the light source [8].

The PPG waveform is influenced by many factors enabling the assessment of vital signs, for example, oxygen saturation, blood pressure, respiratory rate, and heart rate. Promising results show the ability to screen for pathologies related to peripheral vascular disease [7-9]. The purpose of this review was to analyze the available evidence on measuring heart rate by performing PPG using smartphones in comparison with a validated method.

Methods

Literature Search and Selection Criteria

We conducted a systematic literature search of PubMed and ISI Web of Knowledge from January 1, 2009 to December 7, 2016, with the following search key: (smartphone* OR phone* OR ((Applic* OR App*) AND (mobile OR electronic OR software)) OR PPG OR Photoplethysmograph* OR Rheograph*) AND (Electrocardiogr* OR ECG OR EKG or Oximet*) AND ((rate* AND (heart OR pulse)) OR tachycardia* OR beat* OR complex* OR arrhythmia* OR fibrillation*). Only papers in English, German, French, or Dutch were included. The reference lists of included studies were hand-searched to find additional eligible studies.

Studies were included if the measurement of heart rate was conducted with the photo camera of a smartphone by PPG; the measurements were made at a finger, toe, or earlobe; the measurements of the smartphone were compared with an electrocardiogram (ECG), a pulse oximeter, or another validated method to determine heart rate. Studies were excluded if the measurement was conducted with a mobile sensor or medical device connected to a smartphone; the paper did not have heart rate as one of the outcomes; no abstract or full text was available.

Data Extraction and Outcome Measures

Data were extracted by the first author and reviewed by all authors.

Following are study and intervention characteristics extracted from the included studies: first author, study country, study year, sample size, baseline characteristics of participants, age of the participants (mean or range), type of smartphone used, control instrument, duration and conditions of the measurement, and primary outcome measures. The primary outcome measures were the mean difference between heart rate measured by a smartphone and a validated method, the correlation coefficient of the relation between heart rate measurements made by both methods, and the 95% limits of agreement derived from a Bland-Altman plot.

Overall, 1 author was contacted to receive missing data about the heart rate measurements; 2 authors were contacted because of a lack of clarity about the data; and 7 authors were contacted to get access to the full text of the paper; but 2 authors failed to respond to that last request.

Study Quality

Study quality was appraised using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) Diagnostic Test Study checklist [10]. In addition, the included studies were evaluated by extra considerations described in the study of Hanneman [11]. The first was an appraisal tool developed for diagnostic studies. The checklist covered 3 sections: the validity of the results, the actual results, and the utility of the results. With the exception of the questions focusing on the actual results, the topics described were relevant for a method comparison study design. The 9 remaining questions were answered by “yes,” “can’t tell,” or “no.” One question was adapted so that “yes” always indicated a positive answer and “no” a negative answer. “Can’t tell” was answered when there was not enough information found in the study to answer the question. The checklist gave an indication of the quality per section and did not focus on a total score. The latter focused on specific considerations for a method comparison study design. The considerations were converted in 5 questions. These questions were also answered by “yes,” “can’t tell,” or “no.”

The quality assessment was performed by the first author and reviewed by the other authors.

Statistical Methods

In total, 3 different statistics were described, and 2 of them were used for estimation of the pooled result. The first was the mean difference between heart rate measured by a smartphone and a validated method. In case of absence of a mean value and standard deviation in the original paper, it was calculated manually where possible on the basis of the original data.

The second was the Pearson correlation coefficient calculated from the relation between heart rate measured by a smartphone and a validated method. The P value was calculated manually out of the correlation coefficient and sample size if not described in the original paper.

The third were the 95% limits of agreement. They were derived from a Bland-Altman plot. Lower and upper limits were calculated starting from the mean difference by respectively subtracting and adding up the standard deviation of the mean difference between both methods, multiplied by a factor of 1.96. In 2 studies, they were calculated manually starting from the mean difference and the described limit of agreement.

The pooled result was estimated using a fixed- or random-effects model. Statistical heterogeneity was tested using the chi-squared test where a significant result indicated statistical heterogeneity. To quantify inconsistency, the I² of Higgins was used. In case of statistical heterogeneity, a random-effects model was used for pooling the results. Due to the small number of included studies, it was not possible to explore heterogeneity by subgroup analysis or meta-regression [12].

Pearson correlation was used to analyze the relation between different variables (publication year, mean heart rate, and sample size) and the mean difference. The scatter plots of these correlations were drawn.

Statistical analyses were performed using Review Manager Version 5.3 (The Cochrane collaboration, Copenhagen: Denmark: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, 2014), MedCalc 17.4 (MedCalc Software, Ostend: Belgium, 2017), and Microsoft Office Excel 2007 (Microsoft, 2007). Statistical significance level was set at 5%, except for mean difference where statistical significance level was set at 1%.

Results

Study Identification and Selection

Figure 1 shows a diagram of the search and selection strategy. Initially, 1637 studies were found in 2 databases. First, 312 duplicates—identical studies found in both databases—were removed, followed by 1245 studies on the basis of an irrelevant title. The abstract of the remaining 80 studies was screened of which 55 were excluded for not fulfilling the selection criteria [4,13-66]. The 25 remaining studies were reviewed by reading the full text [8,67-90]. An additional 10 studies were excluded for not fulfilling the selection criteria [8,67,71,72,74,76,81,83,84,86]. For 2 studies, the full text could not be retrieved [69,77]. One paper was added after hand-searching the reference list of the included studies [91]. A total of 14 studies was used for this review and meta-analysis [68,70,73,75,78-80,82,85,87-91].

Study Characteristics

Table 1 presents the characteristics of the included studies. In total, 5 studies reported findings on North American participants [68,73,85,89,90], 6 on Western European participants [70,78-80,87,91], and 3 on East Asian participants [75,82,88]. The oldest studies dated from 2010 and the most recent from 2016. Sample sizes varied from 1 to 68, with a median of 24. In total, 8 studies studied an adult population [70,73,78,80,82,85,87,91] and 2 an infant population [75,90], and 4 studies did not mention the age of the participants [68,79,88,89]. In 9 studies, the reference instrument was an ECG [68,70,75,78,79,82,85,89,90]; in 4 studies, a pulse oximeter [80,87,88,91]; and in 1 study, both [73]. The duration of the measurement varied between 10 s and 5 min. Of the selected studies, 2 did not mention the duration of the measurement [89,90]. A total of 5 studies tried to evoke variations in heart rate [68,73,78,82,91], 2 studies controlled the breathing of the participants during measurement [85,89], 1 paper made measurements in different lighting conditions [87], and 1 paper made measurements during different heart rhythms [90]. Overall, 8 studies studied another outcome besides heart rate, namely heart rate variability parameters [68,78,79], other vital parameters [85,89], and other outcomes [70,82,88].

Study Quality

Table 2 presents the quality assessment of the included studies. The quality assessment questions are listed in Textbox 1. All studies had a clear study question and compared the measurements of the smartphone with an appropriate reference standard. Due to the type of test, it was not possible that the measurement of the reference standard influenced the measurement of the smartphone. Also, both methods did measure the same outcome simultaneously. Totally, 5 studies made a clear description of the disease status of the participants [70,73,80,82,90]. Just over half of the studies described the methods for performing the test in sufficient detail [68,70,73,75,78,80,82,85]. Half of the studies provided enough information about the participants to conclude that the results may be applicable to the population of interest [73,75,78,80,82,85,90]. All studies had the same relevant outcome and performed their measurements in a similar way. All but one [82] studies acknowledged that the sample size was small. In 6 studies, the authors made an effort to measure a wide range of the possible physiological values of heart rate [68,73,78,82,90,91]. Only 3 studies used a cutoff value for the clinical acceptable difference between the measurements made by the 2 methods [73,75,80].

Primary Outcome: Heart Rate

The mean difference between heart rate measured by a smartphone and a validated method was analyzed in a fixed-effects model (Figure 2). This statistic was reported in 7 studies [68,73,80,82,88,89,91]. For 2 studies, it was calculated manually out of the original data [85,87]. In 2 studies, the mean difference was consistently positive [82,89]; and in 5 studies, negative [73,80,85,87,88]. In 2 studies, the mean difference was negative, except for 1 condition where there was no difference [68] or the mean difference was positive [91]. The pooled estimate of the 9 included studies suggested that there is no difference between both methods (mean difference −0.32; 99% CI −1.24 to 0.60; P=.37). No statistical heterogeneity was observed among the studies (I²=0%; P>.99).

Table 3 shows the correlation coefficient of the relation between heart rate measurement with a smartphone and a validated reference method. This statistic was reported in 9 studies [68,70,73,75,78-80,82,90]. Previous research stated that the correlation between 2 methods that measure heart rate should be ≥.90 to be considered as valid [92]. In 7 studies, the correlation coefficient was always ≥.90 and the result was statistical significant [68,70,73,78-80,82]. The 2 studies that studied a pediatric population showed more variation in their results. In 1 , the correlation coefficients were remarkably lower during periods of tachycardia, namely .56 and −.43 [90] and not statistical significant for the latter. In 1 paper, the correlation coefficient was only ≥.90 in 2 of the 4 apps. In 1 of these 2 apps, this was just the case for measurements at the earlobe [75].

Figure 1

Search and selection strategy.

Results (cont.)

Table 1 Characteristics of included studies.
Author, year, and countrySample size and age (range or mean [SD])SmartphoneControlDuration and conditions measurementOutcome measure
Bolkhovsky et al, 2012, United States [68]22 subjects, age not specifiedMotorola Droid, iPhone 4SECGa2 × 2 min: supine and sitting up in tilt position (iPhone 4S, n=9); 2 × 5 min: supine and sitting up in tilt position (Motorola Droid, n=13)Heart rate, heart rate variability
Drijkoningen et al, 2014, Belgium [70]28 adults with sinus rhythm during electrophysiological examination, age not specifiedSamsung Galaxy S4ECG60 sHeart rate, premature atrial ectopic beats identification
Gregoski et al, 2012, United States [73]14 adults, 18-59 yearsMotorola DroidECG, pulse oximeter3 × 5 min: sitting, at rest, reading, and playing a video gameHeart rate
Ho et al, 2014, Taiwan [75]40 children undergoing ECG monitoring, 3 days to 15 yearsiPhone 4SECG3 × 20 s at finger (or toe) and earlobeHeart rate
Koenig et al, 2016, Germany [78]68 adults (45 patients from a cardiologic outpatient ambulance and 23 healthy controls), 51.7 (18.83) yearsiPhone 4SECG5 min: at rest 2 min: after 3 min of physical exercise (only controls)Heart rate, heart rate variability
Kurylyak et al, 2012, Italy [91]10 adults, 26-60 yearsHTC HD2, iPhone 4, Nokia 5800, Samsung Galaxy S i9000Pulse oximeter2 × 60 s (per smartphone): at rest and after 60 s squattingHeart rate
Lagido et al, 2014, Portugal [79]43 heart failure patients, age not specifiedSony Xperia SECGAt restHeart rate, heart rate variability
Losa-Iglesias et al, 2016, Spain [80]46 healthy adults, 39.3 (7.35) yearsSamsung Galaxy NoteRadial pulse, pulse oximeter3 × 10-30 s: at rest (resting 10 min before measurements)Heart rate
Matsumara et al, 2013, Japan [82]12 students, 21-24 yearsiPhone 4SECG3 × 3 min: at rest (resting 7 min before measurement), during mental arithmetic, and during mirror tracingHeart rate, normalize pulse volume
Nam et al, 2016, United States [85]11 healthy nonsmoking adults, 20-40 yearsHTC One M8ECG3 × 2 min: breathing at frequencies from 0.1 to 0.5 Hz at increments of 0.1 Hz, breathing at 1 Hz and spontaneous breathingHeart rate and breathing rate
Pelegris et al, 2010, UK [87]50 adults, 21-55 yearsHTC TattooPulse oximeter2 × 9 s: well-lit room and average lit roomHeart rate
Po et al, 2015, China [88]10 subjects, age not specifiedSamsung Galaxy Nexus, LG Optimus P920, Samsung Galaxy S2, Samsung Galaxy Tablet 7.0, Motorala AtrixPulse oximeter1 × 20 sHeart rate and root mean square distortion of heart rate
Scully et al, 2012, United States [89]1 subject, age not specifiedMotorola DroidECG1 × ?: spontaneous breathing 3 × 2 min: breathing at 0.2, 0.3, and 0.4 HzHeart rate, respiration rate, oxygen saturation
Wackel et al, 2014, United States [90]26 children undergoing an electrophysiology study under general anesthesia, 5-17 yearsiPhone 5ECG2 × ?: during baseline heart rate (34 measurements in 17 children) 2 × ?: during sustained supraventricular tachycardia (38 measurements during 21 supraventricular tachycardia in 18 children)Heart rate

Results

Table 2 Study quality according to Critical Appraisal Skills Programme Diagnostic Test study checklist and extra considerations. Y indicates yes; N indicates no; and C indicates can’t tell.
StudyValidity of resultsUtility of resultsExtra considerations
Q1Q2Q3Q4Q5Q6Q9Q10Q11E1E2E3E4E5
Bolkhovsky et alYYYYNYCYYYYNYN
Drijkoningen et alYYYYYYCYYYYNNN
Gregoski et alYYYYYYYYYYYNYY
Ho et alYYYYNYYYYYYNNY
Koenig et alYYYYNYYYYYYNYN
Kurylyak et alYYYYNNCYYYYNYN
Lagido et alYYYYNNCYYYYNCN
Losa-Iglesias et alYYYYYYYYYYYNNY
Matsumara et alYYYYYYYYYYYYYN
Nam et alYYYYNYYYYYYNNN
Pelegris et alYYYYNNCYYYYNNN
Po et alYYYYNNCYYYYNNN
Scully et alYYYYNNCYYYYNNN
Wackel et alYYYYYNYYYYYNYN
Figure 2

Forest plot for the meta-analysis of mean difference.

Results (cont.)

Table 3 Results for heart rate: Pearson correlation coefficient.
StudyConditions (sample size) r a r ≥.90?P valueb
Bolkhovsky et aliPhone supine (9)>.99Yes<.001c
iPhone tilt (9)>.99Yes<.001c
Droid supine (13).98Yes<.001c
Droid tilt (13)>.99Yes<.001c
Drijkoningen et alNot specified (28).98Yes<.001
Gregoski et alAt rest (14).99Yes<.001c
Reading (14).99Yes<.001c
Video game (14).99Yes<.001
Ho et alApp A finger (40).81No<.001
App A earlobe (40).91Yes<.001
App B finger (40).75No<.001
App B earlobe (40).76No<.001
App C finger (40).27No.10
App C earlobe (40).46No.003
App D finger (40).90Yes<.001
App D earlobe (40).98Yes<.001
Koenig et al80 randomly chosen intervals at rest or after exercise (68)>.99Yes<.001c
Lagido et alAt rest (43).94Yes<.001c
Losa-Iglesias et alSitting up (46).95Yes<.001
Matsumura et alAll conditions (12).99Yes<.001c
Wackel et alApp 1 sinus rhythm (17).99Yes<.001c
App 1 tachycardia (10 succeeded attempts).56No.01c
App 2 sinus rhythm (17).99Yes<.001c
App 2 tachycardia (5 succeeded attempts)−.43No.09c

The correlation between heart rate measurements made by a smartphone and a control instrument was analyzed in a random-effects model (Figure 3). The pooled correlation coefficient made the assumption that on average measurements made by a smartphone are highly correlated to those made by a control instrument (correlation coefficient .951; 95% CI 0.906-0.975; P<.001). Of note, statistical heterogeneity was high (I²=93.8%; P<.001), indicating variability across the studies.

Table 4 shows the 95% limits of agreement for the MD between measurements with a smartphone and a validated method. This statistic was reported in 4 studies [80,82,85,88]. For 2 studies, it was calculated manually [68,73]. In all studies, the limits of agreement did not exceed 10 beats per minute.

Correlations With the Mean Difference

The correlation between the mean heart rate measured by a validated method, the sample size of the included studies, and the year of publication of the included studies and the mean difference was analyzed in Figures 4-6, respectively. Correlations between the mean difference and the mean heart rate measured by a validated instrument (r=.13) and sample size (r=−.06) were not significant. However, data showed a moderately strong correlation between the year of publication and the mean difference (r=−.69; P<.001).

Figure 3

Forest plot for the meta-analysis of Pearson correlation coefficient.

Table 4 Results for heart rate: 95% limits of agreement.
StudyConditions (sample size)95% LOAa (BPMb), control—smartphone
Bolkhovsky et aliPhone supine (9)−0.4 to 0.2c
iPhone tilt (9)−0.3 to 0.3c
Droid supine (13)−3.4 to 3.0c
Droid tilt (13)−1.7 to 1.1c
Gregoski et alVideo game (14)−3.9 to 3.7c
Loso-Iglesias et alSitting up (46)−8.5 to 2.0
Matsumura et alAll conditions (12)−1.0 to 1.4
Nam et alAt rest, sitting up (11)−5.6 to 5.5
Pot et alAverage all smartphones (10)−4.1 to 1.2
Figure 4

Scatter plot comparing correlation between mean heart rate measured by control and mean difference.

Figure 5

Scatter plot comparing correlation between sample size and mean difference.

Figure 6

Scatter plot comparing correlation between year of publication and mean difference.

Discussion

Principal Findings

The meta-analysis of the mean difference showed no statistical difference between the measurement of heart rate by a smartphone and a validated method (mean difference −0.32; 99% CI −1.24 to 0.60; P=.37). The pooled correlation coefficient between heart rate measurement by a smartphone and a validated method was more than .90 and statistically significant (correlation coefficient .951; 95% CI 0.906-0.975; P<.001). Reported 95% limits of agreement had a narrow range and therefore showed good agreement between a smartphone and a validated method. These results suggest that a smartphone app deriving heart rate from a PPG signal could be used as an alternative for already validated methods such as an ECG or pulse oximeter in an adult population in resting sinus rhythm. However, the significant negative correlation between the year of publication of the included studies and the mean difference (r=−.69; P<.001) suggests that smartphone technology for measuring heart rate did not improve over time. There was no significant correlation between the mean difference and the mean heart rate measured by a validated method (r=.13; P=.54) or the sample size of the included studies (r=−.06; P=.77), which suggests that smartphone results are consistent for heart rate measurements between 60 and 100 beats per minute.

Considerations

First, the results of the studies in a pediatric population showed that it is not advisable yet to use these apps in children. A possible cause is that because of the smaller size of children’s fingertips, the pulsatile flow may be less consistently detected. The use of the earlobe as a measuring point may present a possible solution. Children may also have difficulties in containing the appropriate pressure on the camera lens and keeping their finger motionless to make a good measurement [73,75,90].

A second issue is heart rate measurement during periods of arrhythmia [4]. The low correlation between measurements with a smartphone and a validated method during periods of supraventricular tachycardia in children suggests that current apps do not give adequate results during periods of extremely high heart rates [90]. Moreover, the smartphone apps in the studies used PPG, calculating the heart rate on basis of the pulse rate. Hence, the results may not be accurate enough during periods of arrhythmia with variations in pulse rate and amplitude due to heart rhythm irregularities [4,82]. A solution is to improve sensitivity and specificity of the apps for deviant heart rhythms depending on the purpose of the apps [62].

Third, previous research stated that heart rate measurement can be susceptible to environmental or human factors such as ambient light, motion [4,93], or skin color [7]. In total, 3 studies reported about lighting conditions [87,88,91]. In these studies, ambient light did not seem to have an influence, but it should still be taken into account. On the basis of this review, it is not possible to say something about the influence of motion, as none of the included studies tested whether accurate pulse rate is measurable by the smartphone apps during exercise. However, several studies do mention this limitation in their discussion. Wearable devices using PPG possibly provide better results during exercise [94]. Only 1 paper mentioned to have included participants with a variety of skin colors but did not make a comparison between different skin types [73]. Hereby, we cannot come to a conclusion about the topic in this review. When using PPG to measure heart rate, it should be taken into account to use a proper light wavelength that gives equal results for people with different skin types [95].

Fourth, it was remarkable that in the included studies the mean difference became more and more negative over time. A plausible explanation is that every paper focuses on (a) certain type(s) of smartphone model(s) or app(s). Consequently, the results cannot be automatically projected to other smartphones and apps [4]. The use of certain smartphones or apps could lead to better results.

Strengths and Limitations

First of all, to the best of our knowledge, this was the first systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating smartphone apps using PPG to measure heart rate. A comprehensive search strategy was used, including every paper investigating smartphone apps deriving heart rate measurement from a PPG signal. At last, there was a focus on different statistics for assessing agreement between methods.

Nevertheless, there were some limitations of the included studies. First, the methodological quality was often low, reflected by the fact that only 3 studies scored 12 or more out of 14 on the quality assessment questions [73,80,82].

Second, most of the mean heart rates that were reported lay between 70 and 80 beats per minute. As a result, it was not possible to investigate whether smartphones could be used to measure the higher physiological ranges of heart rate.

Third, only 8 of the included studies [68,70,73,78,80,82,85,88] used the most appropriate method to determine agreement between the 2 methods, the Bland-Altman plot [96,97]. Of these studies, only 2 mentioned a conclusion of the results, which were in line with the findings of the review [70,78]. A consideration about this method is that it is not easy to determine good agreement [96]. In the literature, no description was found of the maximum heart rate deviation to be clinical relevant. A deviation of under 10 beats per minute has no important clinical implications but does indicate small alterations when repeating the measures. The other methods can support the findings but have their limitations. A Pearson correlation gives information about the relation between methods, but a high correlation does not necessarily mean that the 2 methods agree [97,98]. When using a mean difference, poor agreement can be hidden by looking at the mean difference, without exploring the individual values (eg, an overestimation of high heart rates in combination with an underestimation of low heart rates will also give a mean difference of 0) [97].

A fourth and last limitation is a high statistical heterogeneity between studies on the level of correlation coefficients. This is likely attributable to clinical heterogeneity caused by differences in patient characteristics (eg, adults vs children), the conditions in which the heart rates were measured (eg, at sinus rhythm vs during a period of tachycardia), and which smartphone or app was used [12].

All these factors may influence the generalizability of the results.

In addition, there were some limitations specific to the review. The data were extracted by the first author only; however, they were thoroughly reviewed by the other authors, of which one is specialized in cardiology. In addition, 2 studies were excluded because the full text could not be retrieved [69,77]; the results described in the abstracts of those studies agreed with the pooled results, so their exclusion would probably have a minimal effect.

Conclusions

This meta-analysis suggests that heart rate measured by smartphone apps performing PPG agrees with a validated method in an adult population in resting sinus rhythm, provided that during measurement the measuring point was kept still and that appropriate pressure was maintained. In a pediatric population, the use of these apps can currently not be supported, especially not during periods of tachycardia. Future research with a larger and more diverse study population should be conducted. The technology should also be tested in more varied clinical situations evoking variations in normal heart rate and during arrhythmias.

Referências do artigo (98)
  1. 1 Poushter J Pewglobal 2016 2017-01-06 Smartphone Ownership and Internet Usage Continues to Climb in Emerging Economies http://www.pewglobal.org/2016/02/22/smartphone-ownership-rates-skyrocket-in-many-emerging-economies-but-digital-divide-remains/
  2. 2 Baig MM GholamHosseini H Connolly MJ Mobile healthcare applications: system design review, critical issues and challenges Australas Phys Eng Sci Med 2015 03 38 1 23 38 10.1007/s13246-014-0315-4 25476753 25476753
  3. 3 Sarasohn-Kahn J CHCF 2010 2017-08-06 How Smartphones Are Changing Health Care for Consumers and Providers http://www.chcf.org/~/media/MEDIA%20LIBRARY%20Files/PDF/PDF%20H/PDF%20HowSmartphonesChangingHealthCare.pdf
  4. 4 Bruining N Caiani E Chronaki C Guzik P van der Velde E Task Force of the e-Cardiology Working Acquisition and analysis of cardiovascular signals on smartphones: potential, pitfalls and perspectives: by the Task Force of the e-Cardiology Working Group of European Society of Cardiology Eur J Prev Cardiol 2014 11 21 2 Suppl 4 13 10.1177/2047487314552604 25354948 21/2_suppl/4 25354948
  5. 5 Ozdalga E Ozdalga A Ahuja N The smartphone in medicine: a review of current and potential use among physicians and students J Med Internet Res 2012 14 5 e128 10.2196/jmir.1994 23017375 v14i5e128 23017375 PMC3510747
  6. 6 Martínez-Pérez B de la Torre-Diez I López-Coronado M Herreros-González J Mobile apps in cardiology: review JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2013 1 2 e15 10.2196/mhealth.2737 25098320 v1i2e15 25098320 PMC4114428
  7. 7 Allen J Photoplethysmography and its application in clinical physiological measurement Physiol Meas 2007 03 28 3 R1 39 10.1088/0967-3334/28/3/R01 17322588 S0967-3334(07)14869-3 17322588
  8. 8 Jonathan E Leahy M Investigating a smartphone imaging unit for photoplethysmography Physiol Meas 2010 11 31 11 N79 83 10.1088/0967-3334/31/11/N01 20871134 S0967-3334(10)53334-3 20871134
  9. 9 Elgendi M On the analysis of fingertip photoplethysmogram signals Curr Cardiol Rev 2012 02 8 1 14 25 22845812 CCR-8-1-14 22845812 10.2174/157340312801215782 PMC3394104
  10. 10 Critical Appraisal Skills Programme 2016 12 questions to help you make sense of a diagnostic test study http://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/dded87_5f100f2d207a462a8dd552bfb6090d60.pdf
  11. 11 Hanneman SK Design, analysis, and interpretation of method-comparison studies AACN Adv Crit Care 2008 19 2 223 34 10.1097/01.AACN.0000318125.41512.a3 18560291 01256961-200804000-00017 18560291 PMC2944826
  12. 12 Deeks JJ Higgins JP Altman DG Higgins JP Green S Chapter 9: Analysing data and undertaking meta-analyses Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 2011 UK Cochrane Collaboration
  13. 13 Weng J Guo XM Chen LS Yuan ZH Ding XR Lei M Study on real-time monitoring technique for cardiac arrhythmia based on smartphone J Med Biol Eng 2013 33 4 394 10.5405/jmbe.1278
  14. 14 Waks JW Fein AS Das S Wide complex tachycardia recorded with a smartphone cardiac rhythm monitor JAMA Intern Med 2015 03 175 3 437 9 10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.7586 25621880 2091739 25621880
  15. 15 Tofield A Cardiac arrhythmia challenge: a new app Eur Heart J 2013 11 34 44 3392 24400366 24400366
  16. 16 Tan YY Chung WY Mobile health-monitoring system through visible light communication Biomed Mater Eng 2014 24 6 3529 38 10.3233/BME-141179 25227066 Y502781266514T62 25227066
  17. 17 Tabing A Harrell T Francisco G Romero S Supraventricular tachycardia diagnosed by smartphone electrocardiography J Am Coll Cardiol 2016 04 67 13 1237 10.1016/S0735-1097(16)31238-4
  18. 18 Su Y Yin L Al-Hakim L Ephone: embedded cardiac care device in mobile phone Sen Lett 2011 10 01 9 5 1974 1978 10.1166/sl.2011.1542
  19. 19 Petersen CL Chen TP Ansermino JM Dumont GA Design and evaluation of a low-cost smartphone pulse oximeter Sensors (Basel) 2013 12 06 13 12 16882 93 10.3390/s131216882 24322563 s131216882 24322563 PMC3892845
  20. 20 Peng RC Zhou XL Lin WH Zhang YT Extraction of heart rate variability from smartphone photoplethysmograms Comput Math Methods Med 2015 2015 516826 10.1155/2015/516826 10.1155/2015/516826 25685174 25685174 PMC4309304
  21. 21 Oster J Behar J Colloca R Li Q Li Q Clifford G Open source Java-based ECG analysis software and Android app for Atrial Fibrillation screening 2013 Computing in Cardiology Conference (CinC) September 22-25, 2013 Zaragoza, Spain
  22. 22 Orchard J Freedman SB Lowres N Peiris D Neubeck L iPhone ECG screening by practice nurses and receptionists for atrial fibrillation in general practice: the GP-SEARCH qualitative pilot study Aust Fam Physician 2014 05 43 5 315 9 24791776 24791776
  23. 23 Nyotowidjojo I Erickson RP Lee KS Crowd-sourcing syncope diagnosis: mobile smartphone ECG apps Am J Med 2016 04 129 4 e17 8 10.1016/j.amjmed.2015.11.022 26706387 S0002-9343(15)30021-8 26706387
  24. 24 Nguyen HH Van Hare GF Rudokas M Bowman T Silva JN SPEAR trial: smartphone pediatric electrocARdiogram trial PLoS One 2015 10 8 e0136256 10.1371/journal.pone.0136256 26295569 PONE-D-15-26592 26295569 PMC4546652
  25. 25 Li JP Berry D Hayes R A mobile ECG monitoring system with context collection 2009 4th European Conference of the International Federation for Medical and Biological Engineering November 23-27 Antwerp, Belgium 1222 1225 10.1007/978-3-540-89208-3_292
  26. 26 Lee J Reyes BA McManus DD Mathias O Chon KH Atrial fibrillation detection using an iPhone 4S IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 2013 01 60 1 203 6 10.1109/TBME.2012.2208112 22868524 22868524
  27. 27 Landreani F Martin-Yebra A Casellato C Frigo C Pavan E Migeotte P Caiani EG Beat-to-beat heart rate detection by smartphone's accelerometers: validation with ECG 2016 08 IEEE 38th Annual International Conference of Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC), 2016 August 16-20, 2016 Orlando, FL, USA 525 528 10.1109/EMBC.2016.7590755 28268385
  28. 28 Kwon S Lee J Chung GS Park KS Validation of heart rate extraction through an iPhone accelerometer Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc 2011 2011 5260 3 10.1109/IEMBS.2011.6091301 22255524 22255524
  29. 29 Kwon S Kim H Park KS Validation of heart rate extraction using video imaging on a built-in camera system of a smartphone Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc 2012 2012 2174 7 10.1109/EMBC.2012.6346392 23366353 23366353
  30. 30 Kirtava Z Gegenava T Gegenava M Matoshvili Z Kasradze S Kasradze P Mobile telemonitoring for arrhythmias in outpatients in the Republic of Georgia: a brief report of a pilot study Telemed J E Health 2012 09 18 7 570 1 10.1089/tmj.2011.0170 22827508 22827508 PMC3430988
  31. 31 Karapetyan G Barseghyan R Sarukhanyan H Agaian S Development and validation of an improved smartphone heart rate acquisition system Image Process Algorithms Syst XIII 2015 9399 10.1117/12.2083381
  32. 32 Jokic S Krco S Sakac D Jokic ID Delic V Autonomic telemedical application for Android based mobile devices 2012 Eleventh Symposium on Neural Network Applications in Electrical Engineering September 20-22, 2012 Belgrade, Serbia 10.1109/NEUREL.2012.6420018
  33. 33 Jaworek J Augustyniak P A cardiac telerehabilitation application for mobile devices 2011 Computing in Cardiology September 18-21, 2011 Hangzhou, China
  34. 34 Issac R Ajaynath MS CUEDETA: a real time heart monitoring system using Android smartphone 2012 India Conference (INDICON) December 7-9, 2012 Kochi, India Cuedeta 10.1109/INDCON.2012.6420587
  35. 35 Işik AH Güler I Pulse oximeter based mobile biotelemetry application Stud Health Technol Inform 2012 181 197 201 22954855 22954855
  36. 36 de Oliveira IH Cene VH Balbinot A Portable electrocardiograph through Android application 2015 37th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC), 2015 August 25-29, 2015 Milan, Italy 6780 3 10.1109/EMBC.2015.7319950 26737850
  37. 37 Hadiyoso S Usman K Rizal A Arrhythmia detection based on ECG signal using Android mobile for athlete and patient 2015 2015 3rd International Conference on Information and Communication Technology (ICoICT) May 27-29, 2015 Nusa Dua, Bali 10.1109/ICoICT.2015.7231416
  38. 38 Gradl S Kugler P Lohmuller C Eskofier B Real-time ECG monitoring and arrhythmia detection using Android-based mobile devices Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc 2012 2012 2452 5 10.1109/EMBC.2012.6346460 23366421 23366421
  39. 39 Filipovic N Stojanovic R Lekic N Caplanova A Monitoring and analysis of vital physiological parameters using PDA devices 2014 24th International Conference Radioelektronika (Radioelektronika) April 15-16, 2014 Bratislava, Slovakia
  40. 40 Filipovic N Stojanovic R Debevc M Devedzic G On line ECG processing and visualization using Android smartphone 2013 2nd Mediterranean Conference on Embedded Computing (Meco) June 15-20, 2013 Budva, Serbia 10.1109/MECO.2013.6601326
  41. 41 Fernandes B Afonso JA Simoes R Vital signs monitoring and management using mobile devices 2011 6th Iberian Conference on Information Systems and Technologies June 15-18, 2011 Chaves, Portugal
  42. 42 Ferdman DJ Liberman L Silver ES A smartphone application to diagnose the mechanism of pediatric supraventricular tachycardia Pediatr Cardiol 2015 10 36 7 1452 7 10.1007/s00246-015-1185-6 25958154 10.1007/s00246-015-1185-6 25958154
  43. 43 Cruz T Brás S Soares SC Fernandes JM Monitoring physiology and behavior using Android in phobias Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc 2015 08 2015 3739 42 10.1109/EMBC.2015.7319206 26737106 26737106
  44. 44 Choo KY Ling HC Lo YC Yap ZH Pua JS Phan RC Goh VT Android based self-diagnostic electrocardiogram system for mobile healthcare Technol Health Care 2015 23 Suppl 2 S435 42 10.3233/THC-150980 26410510 THC980 26410510
  45. 45 Banos O Damas M Glossekotter P Hermes A Mende H Pomares H Rojas I Physiodroid: an app for physiological data monitoring 2013 International Work-Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedical Engineering March 18-20, 2013 Granada, Spain
  46. 46 Amiri AM Abhinav Mankodiya K m-QRS: an efficient QRS detection algorithm for mobile health applications 2015 17th International Conference on E-Health Networking, Application & Services (Healthcom) October 14-17, 2015 Boston, MA, USA 10.1109/HealthCom.2015.7454590
  47. 47 Abi Zeid Daou R Aad E Nakhle F Hayek A Borcsok J Patient vital signs monitoring via Android application 2015 2015 International Conference on Advances in Biomedical Engineering (ICABME) Beirut, Lebanon September 16-18, 2015 10.1109/ICABME.2015.7323278
  48. 48 No authors listed ECG? There's an app for that! Harv Heart Lett 2013 03 23 7 8 23914384 23914384
  49. 49 Winkler S Schieber M Lücke S Heinze P Schweizer T Wegertseder D Scherf M Nettlau H Henke S Braecklein M Anker SD Koehler F A new telemonitoring system intended for chronic heart failure patients using mobile telephone technology--feasibility study Int J Cardiol 2011 11 17 153 1 55 8 10.1016/j.ijcard.2010.08.038 20851481 S0167-5273(10)00628-5 20851481
  50. 50 Vashist SK Schneider EM Luong JH Commercial smartphone-based devices and smart applications for personalized healthcare monitoring and management Diagnostics (Basel) 2014 08 18 4 3 104 28 10.3390/diagnostics4030104 26852680 diagnostics4030104 26852680 PMC4665560
  51. 51 Saldarriaga AJ Perez JJ Restrepo J Bustamante J A mobile application for ambulatory electrocardiographic monitoring in clinical and domestic environments 2013 2013 Pan American Health Care Exchanges (PAHCE) 29 April-4 May, 2013 Medellin, Colombia 10.1109/PAHCE.2013.6568306
  52. 52 Plesnik E Malgina O Tasic JF Zajc M ECG signal acquisition and analysis for telemonitoring 2010 15th IEEE Mediterranean Electrotechnical Conference (MELECON 2010) April 26-28, 2010 Valletta, Malta 10.1109/MELCON.2010.5475990
  53. 53 Mittal S Smartphone-based electrocardiographic and cardiac implantable electronic device monitoring Cardiol Rev 2017 25 1 12 16 10.1097/CRD.0000000000000132 27922466 00045415-201701000-00005 27922466
  54. 54 Mattila J Ding H Mattila E Särelä A Mobile tools for home-based cardiac rehabilitation based on heart rate and movement activity analysis Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc 2009 2009 6448 52 10.1109/IEMBS.2009.5333540 19964430 19964430
  55. 55 Mateev H Simova I Katova T Dimitrov N Clinical evaluation of a mobile heart rhythm telemonitoring system ISRN Cardiol 2012 2012 192670 10.5402/2012/192670 10.5402/2012/192670 23097720 23097720 PMC3477669
  56. 56 Madias JE A proposal for monitoring patients with heart failure via “smart phone technology”-based electrocardiograms J Electrocardiol 2016 49 5 699 706 10.1016/j.jelectrocard.2016.06.001 27334627 S0022-0736(16)30066-8 27334627
  57. 57 Kumpusch H Hayn D Kreiner K Falgenhauer M Mor J Schreier G A mobile phone based telemonitoring concept for the simultaneous acquisition of biosignals physiological parameters Stud Health Technol Inform 2010 160 Pt 2 1344 8 20841903 20841903
  58. 58 Kumar M Veeraraghavan A Sabharwal A DistancePPG: Robust non-contact vital signs monitoring using a camera Biomed Opt Express 2015 05 01 6 5 1565 88 10.1364/BOE.6.001565 26137365 1565 26137365 PMC4467696
  59. 59 Guzik P Malik M ECG by mobile technologies J Electrocardiol 2016 49 6 894 901 10.1016/j.jelectrocard.2016.07.030 27524474 S0022-0736(16)30108-X 27524474
  60. 60 Gonzalez-Fernandez R Mulet-Cartaya M Lopez-Cardona JD Lopez-Rodriguez R A mobile application for cardiac rhythm study 2015 Computing in Cardiology Conference (CinC) September 6-9, 2015 Nice, France 10.1109/CIC.2015.7408669
  61. 61 Garabelli P Stavrakis S Po S Smartphone-based arrhythmia monitoring Curr Opin Cardiol 2017 01 32 1 53 57 10.1097/HCO.0000000000000350 27875477 27875477
  62. 62 Freedman B Screening for atrial fibrillation using a smartphone: is there an app for that? J Am Heart Assoc 2016 07 21 5 7 10.1161/JAHA.116.004000 27444507 JAHA.116.004000 PMC5015417 27444507
  63. 63 Fang DJ Hu JC Wei XF Shao H Luo YE A smart phone healthcare monitoring system for oxygen saturation and heart rate 2014 International Conference on Cyber-Enabled Distributed Computing and Knowledge Discovery October 13-15, 2014 Shanghai, China 10.1109/CyberC.2014.51
  64. 64 de Lucena SE Sampaio D Mall B Meyer M Burkart MA Keller FV ECG monitoring using Android mobile phone and Bluetooth 2015 2015 IEEE International Instrumentation and Measurement Technology Conference (I2MTC) Proceedings May 11-14, 2015 Pisa, Italy 10.1109/I2MTC.2015.7151585
  65. 65 Bal U Non-contact estimation of heart rate and oxygen saturation using ambient light Biomed Opt Express 2015 01 01 6 1 86 97 10.1364/BOE.6.000086 25657877 86 25657877 PMC4317113
  66. 66 Ahamed MA Hasan MK Alam MS Design and implementation of low cost ECG monitoring system for the patient using smartphone 2015 2015 International Conference on Electrical & Electronic Engineering (ICEEE) November 4-6, 2015 Rajshahi, Bangladesh 261 264 10.1109/CEEE.2015.7428272
  67. 67 Bobra NP Wang ZB Zhang WF Luo A A high-quality, low-energy, small-size system-on-chip (soc) solution enabling ECG mobile applications 2013 39th Annual Conference of the IEEE Industrial Electronics Society November 10-13, 2013 Vienna, Austria 8406 8409 10.1109/IECON.2013.6700542
  68. 68 Bolkhovsky JB Scully CG Chon KH Statistical analysis of heart rate and heart rate variability monitoring through the use of smart phone cameras Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc 2012 2012 1610 3 10.1109/EMBC.2012.6346253 23366214 23366214
  69. 69 Cheatham SW Kolber MJ Ernst MP Concurrent validity of resting pulse-rate measurements: a comparison of 2 smartphone applications, the polar H7 belt monitor, and a pulse oximeter with bluetooth J Sport Rehabil 2015 05 24 2 171 8 10.1123/jsr.2013-0145 24700420 2013-0145 24700420
  70. 70 Drijkoningen L Lenaerts F Van der Auwera J Leysen K Nuyens D Vandervoort P Grieten L Validation of a smartphone based photoplethysmographic beat detection algorithm for normal and ectopic complexes 2014 Computing in Cardiology 2014 September 7-10, 2014 Cambridge, MA, USA
  71. 71 Flatt AA Esco MR Validity of the ithleteTM smart phone application for determining ultra-short-term heart rate variability J Hum Kinet 2013 12 18 39 85 92 10.2478/hukin-2013-0071 24511344 jhk-39-85 24511344 PMC3916914
  72. 72 Garabelli P Stavrakis S Albert M Koomson E Parwani P Chohan J Smith L Albert D Xie RS Xie QY Reynolds D Po S Comparison of QT interval readings in normal sinus rhythm between a smartphone heart monitor and a 12-lead ECG for healthy volunteers and inpatients receiving sotalol or dofetilide J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol 2016 07 27 7 827 32 10.1111/jce.12976 27027653 27027653
  73. 73 Gregoski MJ Mueller M Vertegel A Shaporev A Jackson BB Frenzel RM Sprehn SM Treiber FA Development and validation of a smartphone heart rate acquisition application for health promotion and wellness telehealth applications Int J Telemed Appl 2012 2012 696324 10.1155/2012/696324 10.1155/2012/696324 22272197 22272197 PMC3261476
  74. 74 Haberman ZC Jahn RT Bose R Tun H Shinbane JS Doshi RN Chang PM Saxon LA Wireless smartphone ECG enables large-scale screening in diverse populations J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol 2015 05 26 5 520 6 10.1111/jce.12634 25651872 25651872
  75. 75 Ho CL Fu YC Lin MC Chan SC Hwang B Jan SL Smartphone applications (apps) for heart rate measurement in children: comparison with electrocardiography monitor Pediatr Cardiol 2014 04 35 4 726 31 10.1007/s00246-013-0844-8 24259012 24259012
  76. 76 Huang RY Dung LR Measurement of heart rate variability using off-the-shelf smart phones Biomed Eng Online 2016 01 29 15 11 10.1186/s12938-016-0127-8 26822804 10.1186/s12938-016-0127-8 26822804 PMC4731953
  77. 77 Kanva AK Sharma CJ Deb S Determination of spo(2) and heart-rate using smart-phone camera 2014 Proceedings of The 2014 International Conference on Control, Instrumentation, Energy and Communication (CIEC) January 31-February 2, 2014 Calcutta, India 237 241 10.1109/CIEC.2014.6959086
  78. 78 Koenig N Seeck A Eckstein J Mainka A Huebner T Voss A Weber S Validation of a new heart rate measurement algorithm for fingertip recording of video signals with smartphones Telemed J E Health 2016 08 22 8 631 6 10.1089/tmj.2015.0212 26938673 26938673
  79. 79 Lagido RB Lobo J Leite S Sousa C Ferreira L Silva-Cardoso J Using the smartphone camera to monitor heart rate and rhythm in heart failure patients 2014 IEEE-EMBS International Conference on Biomedical and Health Informatics (BHI) June 1-4, 2014 Valencia, Spain 556 559 10.1109/BHI.2014.6864425
  80. 80 Losa-Iglesias ME Becerro-de-Bengoa-Vallejo R Becerro-de-Bengoa-Losa KR Reliability and concurrent validity of a peripheral pulse oximeter and health-app system for the quantification of heart rate in healthy adults Health Informatics J 2016 22 2 151 9 10.1177/1460458214540909 25038201 1460458214540909 25038201
  81. 81 Mateev H Simova I Katova T Dimitrov N Clinical evaluation of a mobile heart rhythm telemonitoring system ISRN Cardiol 2012 2012 192670 10.5402/2012/192670 10.5402/2012/192670 23097720 23097720 PMC3477669
  82. 82 Matsumura K Yamakoshi T iPhysioMeter: a new approach for measuring heart rate and normalized pulse volume using only a smartphone Behav Res Methods 2013 12 45 4 1272 8 10.3758/s13428-012-0312-z 23408381 23408381
  83. 83 McManus DD Chong JW Soni A Saczynski JS Esa N Napolitano C Darling CE Boyer E Rosen RK Floyd KC Chon KH Pulse-smart: Pulse-based arrhythmia discrimination using a novel smartphone application J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol 2016 01 27 1 51 7 10.1111/jce.12842 26391728 26391728 PMC4768310
  84. 84 McManus DD Lee J Maitas O Esa N Pidikiti R Carlucci A Harrington J Mick E Chon KH A novel application for the detection of an irregular pulse using an iPhone 4S in patients with atrial fibrillation Heart Rhythm 2013 03 10 3 315 9 10.1016/j.hrthm.2012.12.001 23220686 S1547-5271(12)01435-X 23220686 PMC3698570
  85. 85 Nam Y Kong Y Reyes B Reljin N Chon KH Monitoring of heart and breathing rates using dual cameras on a smartphone PLoS One 2016 11 3 e0151013 10.1371/journal.pone.0151013 26963390 PONE-D-15-39290 26963390 PMC4786286
  86. 86 Papon MTI Ahmad I Saquib N Rahman A Non-invasive heart rate measuring smartphone applications using on-board cameras: a short survey 2015 2015 International Conference on Networking Systems and Security (NSysS) January 5-7, 2015 Dhaka, Bangladesh 10.1109/NSysS.2015.7043533
  87. 87 Pelegris P Banitsas K Orbach T Marias K A novel method to detect heart beat rate using a mobile phone Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc 2010 2010 5488 91 10.1109/IEMBS.2010.5626580 21096290 21096290
  88. 88 Po LM Xu XY Feng LT Li YM Cheung KW Cheung CH Frame adaptive ROI for photoplethysmography signal extraction from fingertip video captured by smartphone 2015 2015 IEEE International Symposium on Circuits and Systems (ISCAS) May 24-27, 2015 Lisbon, Portugal 1634 1637 10.1109/ISCAS.2015.7168963
  89. 89 Scully CG Lee J Meyer J Gorbach AM Granquist-Fraser D Mendelson Y Chon KH Physiological parameter monitoring from optical recordings with a mobile phone IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 2012 02 59 2 303 6 10.1109/TBME.2011.2163157 21803676 21803676 PMC3476722
  90. 90 Wackel P Beerman L West L Arora G Tachycardia detection using smartphone applications in pediatric patients J Pediatr 2014 05 164 5 1133 5 10.1016/j.jpeds.2014.01.047 24655535 S0022-3476(14)00075-4 24655535
  91. 91 Kurylyak Y Lamonaca F Grimaldi D Duro RJ López-Peña F Smartphone-based photoplethysmogram measurement Digital Image, Signal and Data Processing for Measurement Systems 2012 Denmark River Publishers 135 164
  92. 92 Terbizan DJ Dolezal BA Albano C Validity of seven commercially available heart rate monitors Meas Phys Educ Exerc Sci 2002 12 6 4 243 247 10.1207/S15327841MPEE0604_3
  93. 93 Boulos MN Wheeler S Tavares C Jones R How smartphones are changing the face of mobile and participatory healthcare: an overview, with example from eCAALYX Biomed Eng Online 2011 10 24 10.1186/1475-925X-10-24 21466669 1475-925X-10-24 21466669 PMC3080339
  94. 94 Parak J Uuskoski M Machek J Korhonen I Estimating heart rate, energy expenditure, and physical performance with a wrist photoplethysmographic device during running JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2017 07 25 5 7 e97 10.2196/mhealth.7437 28743682 v5i7e97 28743682 PMC5548984
  95. 95 Fallow BA Tarumi T Tanaka H Influence of skin type and wavelength on light wave reflectance J Clin Monit Comput 2013 06 27 3 313 7 10.1007/s10877-013-9436-7 23397431 23397431
  96. 96 van Stralen KJ Jager KJ Zoccali C Dekker FW Agreement between methods Kidney Int 2008 11 74 9 1116 20 10.1038/ki.2008.306 18596728 S0085-2538(15)53488-1 18596728
  97. 97 Zaki R Bulgiba A Ismail R Ismail NA Statistical methods used to test for agreement of medical instruments measuring continuous variables in method comparison studies: a systematic review PLoS One 2012 7 5 e37908 10.1371/journal.pone.0037908 22662248 PONE-D-12-05103 22662248 PMC3360667
  98. 98 Bland JM Altman DG Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement Lancet 1986 02 8 1 8476 307 10 2868172 S0140-6736(86)90837-8 2868172

De Ridder B et al.. Smartphone Apps Using Photoplethysmography for Heart Rate Monitoring: Meta-Analysis. JMIR cardio, 2018. Publicado em acesso aberto sob a licença CC BY 4.0; original em doi.org/10.2196/cardio.8802. A Piantare reproduz o texto com formatação adaptada, sem mudar o conteúdo; a tradução para o português é uma adaptação automática. A reprodução não indica endosso dos autores à Piantare.

Da ciência para o seu dia

Quer entender o que isso muda para você?

A anamnese da Piantare leva 6 minutos e mostra por onde começar. Se ficou uma dúvida, o Time Piantare responde.

Começar a anamnesePergunte ao EspecialistaVoltar à Biblioteca