↓ Skip to main content

Comparative Analysis of the Equivital EQ02 Lifemonitor with Holter Ambulatory ECG Device for Continuous Measurement of ECG, Heart Rate, and Heart Rate Variability: A Validation Study for Precision…

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Physiology, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
63 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
128 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Comparative Analysis of the Equivital EQ02 Lifemonitor with Holter Ambulatory ECG Device for Continuous Measurement of ECG, Heart Rate, and Heart Rate Variability: A Validation Study for Precision and Accuracy
Published in
Frontiers in Physiology, September 2016
DOI 10.3389/fphys.2016.00391
Pubmed ID
Authors

Abimbola A. Akintola, Vera van de Pol, Daniel Bimmel, Arie C. Maan, Diana van Heemst

Abstract

Background: The Equivital (EQ02) is a multi-parameter telemetric device offering both real-time and/or retrospective, synchronized monitoring of ECG, HR, and HRV, respiration, activity, and temperature. Unlike the Holter, which is the gold standard for continuous ECG measurement, EQO2 continuously monitors ECG via electrodes interwoven in the textile of a wearable belt. Objective: To compare EQ02 with the Holter for continuous home measurement of ECG, heart rate (HR), and heart rate variability (HRV). Methods: Eighteen healthy participants wore, simultaneously for 24 h, the Holter and EQ02 monitors. Per participant, averaged HR, and HRV per 5 min from the two devices were compared using Pearson correlation, paired T-test, and Bland-Altman analyses. Accuracy and precision metrics included mean absolute relative difference (MARD). Results: Artifact content of EQ02 data varied widely between (range 1.93-56.45%) and within (range 0.75-9.61%) participants. Comparing the EQ02 to the Holter, the Pearson correlations were respectively 0.724, 0.955, and 0.997 for datasets containing all data and data with < 50 or < 20% artifacts respectively. For datasets containing respectively all data, data with < 50, or < 20% artifacts, bias estimated by Bland-Altman analysis was -2.8, -1.0, and -0.8 beats per minute and 24 h MARD was 7.08, 3.01, and 1.5. After selecting a 3-h stretch of data containing 1.15% artifacts, Pearson correlation was 0.786 for HRV measured as standard deviation of NN intervals (SDNN). Conclusions: Although the EQ02 can accurately measure ECG and HRV, its accuracy and precision is highly dependent on artifact content. This is a limitation for clinical use in individual patients. However, the advantages of the EQ02 (ability to simultaneously monitor several physiologic parameters) may outweigh its disadvantages (higher artifact load) for research purposes and/ or for home monitoring in larger groups of study participants. Further studies can be aimed at minimizing the artifacts.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 128 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 128 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 20 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 15%
Researcher 16 13%
Student > Master 16 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 6%
Other 18 14%
Unknown 31 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 16%
Engineering 15 12%
Sports and Recreations 13 10%
Neuroscience 8 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 6%
Other 27 21%
Unknown 37 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 September 2022.
All research outputs
#4,218,759
of 23,443,716 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Physiology
#2,151
of 14,169 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#68,856
of 322,486 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Physiology
#30
of 165 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,443,716 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,169 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 322,486 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 165 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.