Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2018 Feb 27;2(1):e4.
doi: 10.2196/cardio.8802.

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

Benjamin De Ridder #  1   2 , Bart Van Rompaey  2 , Jarl K Kampen  3   4 , Steven Haine  5   6 , Tinne Dilles  2
Affiliations
Review

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

Benjamin De Ridder et al. JMIR Cardio. .

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.

Keywords: electrocardiography; heart rate; meta-analysis; mobile applications; oximetry; photoplethysmography.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: None declared.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Search and selection strategy.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Forest plot for the meta-analysis of mean difference.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Forest plot for the meta-analysis of Pearson correlation coefficient.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Scatter plot comparing correlation between mean heart rate measured by control and mean difference.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Scatter plot comparing correlation between sample size and mean difference.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Scatter plot comparing correlation between year of publication and mean difference.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    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...
    1. Baig MM, GholamHosseini H, Connolly MJ. Mobile healthcare applications: system design review, critical issues and challenges. Australas Phys Eng Sci Med. 2015 Mar;38(1):23–38. doi: 10.1007/s13246-014-0315-4. - DOI - PubMed
    1. 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%20Ho... .
    1. 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 Nov;21(2 Suppl):4–13. doi: 10.1177/2047487314552604.21/2_suppl/4 - DOI - PubMed
    1. 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. doi: 10.2196/jmir.1994. http://www.jmir.org/2012/5/e128/ v14i5e128 - DOI - PMC - PubMed