Last Updated on January 30, 2023 by pg@petergamma.org
In the paper, the signal quality of a Polar H10 chest strap was determined and compared to a Schiller Medilog AR12 Plus Holter ECG Recorder for $1700:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31004219/
The signal quality was determined by analysing individual ECG peaks manually. But there are for instance from iWorx toolboxes available to study every single ECG peak in great detail:
Why did the Swiss Federal Institute of Sport Magglingen SFISM not choose such an ECG toolbox, which is also used in other scientific studies? Also other manufacturers of research and medical grade ECG manufacturers offer ECG toolboxes.
The paper compared the accuracy of a Polar H10 to a Schiller Medilog AR12 Plus Holter ECG Recorder for $1700. Other papers as the group of the cardiologist Dr. Desai from Cleveland Clinic in Ohio have chosen an expensive Quinton Standard 3-leads Q-tel RMS device which is also used for clinical studies for this purpose, or a g.tec g.Nautilus multipurpose device with active electrodes to minimize ECG movements artifacts, which costs more than 50 000 USD.
Is it smart to choose a cheap ECG device a Schiller Medilog AR12 Plus Holter ECG Recorder for $1700 for a validation study, if one could associate also with a cardiologist who has an expensive ECG device which can be used for clinical studies instead? And is it smart to analyse individual ECG peaks manually, if there are also devices with ECG toolboxes on the market, which allow to study each ECG peak with an ECG toolbox in great detail?
The Swiss Federal Institute of Sport Magglingen SFISM does studies with ECG devices. But are they experts for ECG devices, and how to handle with those? Are they experts for ECG movement artifacts and how to remove those? We strongly doubt about this.