The biggest issue of validation studies of HRMS is for us personally the unavailability of a generally accepted high-quality reference device

Last Updated on December 10, 2023 by pg@petergamma.org

A Polar H10 chest strap for 90 USD is currently more suitable as reference for such studies than a g.ec medical device for 50 000 USD if someone wants one device for all activities.

090. Review of Accuracy Studies of Consumer Grade Heart Rate Monitors: Methods, Testing Protocols, Reference Devices

Unfortunately we do not have a generally accepted highly accurate reference device to study the accuracy of consumer grade heart rate monitors for all activities. We suffer that Rob ter Horst want to sell us the 90 USD Polar H10 chest strap as a accuracy validation tool:

And devices such as g.tec medical multi-purpose which costs 50 000 USD are not capable to be as accurate or more accurate than a Polar H10 chest strap for instance on a treadmill from zero to maximal speed.

In the example of Apple watches we have seen that the Apple watch 1 and Apple watch 3 are validated by validation papers of the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio which make those devices interesting for clinical and research applications:

Which are the most accurate heart rate monitors for different activities?

But then we have only one paper for the Apple watch 6:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17461391.2021.2023656

And this paper uses a Polar H10 chest strap as a reference. In the papers of the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio we have seen that the diffidence between a Polar H7 chest strap and a 3 channel ECG on a treadmill is 2 percent. But if we perform tests at the level where a view view percent matters, for whom is a reference device acceptable which differs from the most accurate 3 channel ECG device for 2 percent? Eventually for Rob ter Horst and the seller who offer him smartwatches to test and compare to the Polar H10. But for which other scientists and medical doctors is this acceptable?