%0 Journal Article
%@ 2561-1011
%I JMIR Publications
%V 2
%N 1
%P e4
%T Smartphone Apps Using Photoplethysmography for Heart Rate Monitoring: Meta-Analysis
%A De Ridder,Benjamin
%A Van Rompaey,Bart
%A Kampen,Jarl K
%A Haine,Steven
%A Dilles,Tinne
%+ University Hospital Ghent, De Pintelaan 185, Ghent, 9000, Belgium, 32 472260561, benjaminderidder@gmail.com
%K mobile applications
%K heart rate
%K photoplethysmography
%K electrocardiography
%K oximetry
%K meta-analysis
%D 2018
%7 27.02.2018
%9 Review
%J JMIR Cardio
%G English
%X 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. 
%M 31758768
%R 10.2196/cardio.8802
%U http://cardio.jmir.org/2018/1/e4/
%U https://doi.org/10.2196/cardio.8802
%U http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31758768