Last Updated on August 24, 2023 by pg@petergamma.org
On the one hand, scientists with highly accurate and very expensive ECG devices have tested smartwatches as far as accuracy is concerned. On the other hand Rob ter Horst walks alone and tests 100 smartwatches and compares those to the Polar H10. Rob has reached his goal. He can say us which are the most accurate devices, but delivers us no numerical and statistical data to proof his statements.
On the other hand, if we look at the scientific papers, we see not a single plot, not a single table, not a single method, but only every now and then a new paper, which is hardly followed by a second paper by the same group. You can see this in our review about this topic:
Does this mean that consumer grade heart rate monitors cannot be used satisfyingly for scientific purposes, since they deliver data which cannot be reproduced in a satisfisfyingly way? If the consumer grade devices would deliver reproducable and accurate data, would not scientists who are interested in those write paper after paper about those? But where are these new papers?
We only find on a regular basis scientific reviews from Rob ter Horst about smartwatches which claim for instance not to be clickbait, not to be sponsored with unbiased data. But we can not find even a table from Rob in which we can find Robs unbiased data. But Rob still lacks a scientific proof of his statements. Robs plots become bigger and bigger, but how good is the scientific basis of his mega plots? We do not know anything about this.