These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed


  • Title: Reliability and validity of a smartphone pulse rate application for the assessment of resting and elevated pulse rate.
    Author: Mitchell K, Graff M, Hedt C, Simmons J.
    Journal: Physiother Theory Pract; 2016 Aug; 32(6):494-499. PubMed ID: 27459148.
    Abstract:
    UNLABELLED: Purpose/hypothesis: This study was designed to investigate the test-retest reliability, concurrent validity, and the standard error of measurement (SEm) of a pulse rate assessment application (Azumio®'s Instant Heart Rate) on both Android® and iOS® (iphone operating system) smartphones as compared to a FT7 Polar® Heart Rate monitor. Number of subjects: 111. MATERIALS/METHODS: Resting (sitting) pulse rate was assessed twice and then the participants were asked to complete a 1-min standing step test and then immediately re-assessed. The smartphone assessors were blinded to their measurements. RESULTS: Test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC 2,1] and 95% confidence interval) for the three tools at rest (time 1/time 2): iOS® (0.76 [0.67-0.83]); Polar® (0.84 [0.78-0.89]); and Android® (0.82 [0.75-0.88]). Concurrent validity at rest time 2 (ICC 2,1) with the Polar® device: IOS® (0.92 [0.88-0.94]) and Android® (0.95 [0.92-0.96]). Concurrent validity post-exercise (time 3) (ICC) with the Polar® device: iOS® (0.90 [0.86-0.93]) and Android® (0.94 [0.91-0.96]). The SEm values for the three devices at rest: iOS® (5.77 beats per minute [BPM]), Polar® (4.56 BPM) and Android® (4.96 BPM). CONCLUSIONS: The Android®, iOS®, and Polar® devices showed acceptable test-retest reliability at rest and post-exercise. Both the smartphone platforms demonstrated concurrent validity with the Polar® at rest and post-exercise. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The Azumio® Instant Heart Rate application when used by either platform appears to be a reliable and valid tool to assess pulse rate in healthy individuals.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]