English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The possibility of using a smartwatch as a rehabilitation tool to monitor patients’ heart rates during exercise has gained the attention of many researchers. This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy and precision of the HR measurement performed by two wrist monitors: the Fitbit Charge 4 and the Xiaomi Mi Band 5. Thirty-one healthy volunteers were asked to perform a stress test on a treadmill. Their heart rates were recorded simultaneously by the wristbands and an electrocardiogram (ECG) at 1 min intervals. The mean absolute error percentage (MAPE), Lin’s concordance correlation coefficient (LCCC), and Bland–Altman analysis were calculated to compare the precision and accuracy of heart rate measurements. The estimated validation criteria were MAPE &lt; 10% and LCCC &lt; 0.8. The overall MAPE and LCCC of the Fitbit were 10.19% (±11.79%) and 0.753 (95% CI: 0.717–0.785), respectively. The MAPE and LCCC of the Xiaomi were 6.89% (±9.75) and 0.903 (0.886–0.917), respectively. The precision and accuracy of both devices decreased with the increased exercise intensity. The accuracy of wearable wrist-worn heart rate monitors varies and depends on the intensity of training. Therefore, the decision to use such a device as a heart rate monitor during in-home rehabilitation should be made with caution.

Wristbands in Home-Based Rehabilitation—Validation of Heart Rate Measurement