Validity of Optical Blood Flow Heart Rate Monitors

PURPOSE: Validate the Schoche (SC) (RhythmTM), Basis B1 Band (BB) (BASIS Science, Inc.), and Mio Alpha (MA) (Physical Enterprises, Inc.) wireless heart rate monitors. METHODS: Fifteen college students (males, n=11, age=27±5yrs; females, n=4, age=27±6yrs) participated. All participants simultaneously wore the SC on left forearm, the BB on the right wrist, the MA on the left wrist, and Polar HR strap on their chest. Participants’ resting heart rate was measured twice prior to exercise. The exercise protocol consisted of one 30-minute bout of continuous walking and running in which the treadmill speed increased every 5-minutes. The treadmill started at 2 mph and completed at 6 mph, followed by 3 minutes of cool down. HR was recorded every minute from each monitor including the Polar HR monitor as a criterion measure. RESULTS: Average HRs (means ± SD) for Polar HR, SC, MA, and BB were 113±32, 110±34, 117±32, and 111±27. A strong pearson’s correlation coefficient was observed with the SC (r =.88) and the MA (r =.75), but a weak correlation coefficient was found with the BB (r =.41), p\u3e0.01. Corresponding absolute error rates were 6.0±12.5%, 11.7±24.2%, and 18.2±21.3%. ANOVA and post hoc analyses with Bonferroni revealed nonsignificant differences between the SC, MA, and BB (p \u3e 0.05) compared to the Polar HR. CONCLUSION: The results demonstrate that the wireless wrist-oriented heart rate monitors provide an accurate measurement of HR during exercise. However, further research is needed to validate these monitors with a larger sample in different environment

Validity of the iHealth-BP7 and Withings-BP800 Self Measurement Blood Pressure Monitor

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to validate the iHealth-BP7 and Withings-BP800 monitors according to the European Society of Hypertension (ESH) International Protocol revision 2010. METHODS: Data from 11 participants (31.6 ± 2.2 years) were initially examined according to the ESH International Protocol for the validation of BP measuring devices. Participants were asked to sit and relax for 10-15 mins with legs uncrossed, and back supported prior to the test. In all participants, sequential left arm measurements were performed by two trained observers using a mercury sphygmomanometer and one supervisor using the device. Collected data were screened according to the ESH protocol RESULTS: The mean differences between the monitor and sphygmomanometer readings were -0.55±3.75 (SBP) and 0.54±3.62 (DBP) for iHealth-BP7 and 3.18±4.37 (SBP) and - 0.35±5.42 (DBP) for Withings-BP800. The iHealth-BP7 monitor passed all of the modified requirements, however the WithingsBP800 did not meet the last phase of the modified protocol. CONCLUSION: The iHealth-BP7 monitor is recommended as a valid home BP monitoring device, however the Withings-BP800 fails to meet the ESH criteria in this study potentially due to the small sample size. Since the ESH protocol requires 33 subjects, further study with additional participants is warranted to determine validation of both devices