Heart rate (HR), when combined with accelerometry, can dramatically improve estimates of energy expenditure and sleep. Advancements in technology, via the development and introduction of small, low-cost photoplethysmography devices embedded within wrist-worn consumer wearables, have made the collection of heart rate (HR) under free-living conditions more feasible. This systematic review and meta-analysis compared the validity of wrist-worn HR estimates to a criterion measure of HR (electrocardiography ECG or chest strap). Searches of PubMed/Medline, Web of Science, EBSCOhost, PsycINFO, and EMBASE resulted in a total of 44 articles representing 738 effect sizes across 15 different brands. Multi-level random effects meta-analyses resulted in a small mean difference (beats per min, bpm) of -0.40 bpm (95 confidence interval (CI) -1.64 to 0.83) during sleep, -0.01 bpm (-0.02 to 0.00) during rest, -0.51 bpm (-1.60 to 0.58) during treadmill activities (walking to running), while the mean difference was larger during resistance training (-7.26 bpm, -10.46 to -4.07) and cycling (-4.55 bpm, -7.24 to -1.87). Mean difference increased by 3 bpm (2.5 to 3.5) per 10 bpm increase of HR for resistance training. Wrist-worn devices that measure HR demonstrate acceptable validity compared to a criterion measure of HR for most common activities.
Keywords: Heart rate; photoplethysmography; validity.