Background New consumer health devices are being developed to easily monitor multiple physiological parameters on a regular basis. Many of these vital sign measurement devices have yet to be formally studied in a clinical setting but have already spread widely throughout the consumer market. Objective The aim of this study was to investigate the accuracy and precision of heart rate (HR), systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), and oxygen saturation (SpO2) measurements of 2 novel all-in-one monitoring devices, the BodiMetrics Performance Monitor and the Everlast smartwatch. Methods We enrolled 127 patients (>18 years) from the Thomas Jefferson University Hospital Preadmission Testing Center. SBP and HR were measured by both investigational devices. In addition, the Everlast watch was utilized to measure DBP, and the BodiMetrics Performance Monitor was utilized to measure SpO2. After 5 min of quiet sitting, four hospital-grade standard and three investigational vital sign measurements were taken, with 60 seconds in between each measurement. The reference vital sign measurements were calculated by determining the average of the two standard measurements that bounded each investigational measurement. Using this method, we determined three comparison pairs for each investigational device in each subject. After excluding data from 42 individuals because of excessive variation in sequential standard measurements per prespecified dropping rules, data from 85 subjects were used for final analysis. Results Of 85 participants, 36 (42%) were women, and the mean age was 53 (SD 21) years. The accuracy guidelines were only met for the HR measurements in both devices. SBP measurements deviated 16.9 (SD 13.5) mm Hg and 5.3 (SD 4.7) mm Hg from the reference values for the Everlast and BodiMetrics devices, respectively. The mean absolute difference in DBP measurements for the Everlast smartwatch was 8.3 (SD 6.1) mm Hg. The mean absolute difference between BodiMetrics and reference SpO2 measurements was 3.02%. Conclusions Both devices we investigated met accuracy guidelines for HR measurements, but they failed to meet the predefined accuracy guidelines for other vital sign measurements. Continued sale of consumer physiological monitors without prior validation and approval procedures is a public health concern.

Part of the Anesthesiology Commons This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Jefferson Digital Commons. The Jefferson Digital Commons is a service of Thomas Jefferson University's Center for Teaching and Learning (CTL). The Commons is a showcase for Jefferson books and journals, peer-reviewed scholarly publications, unique historical collections from the University archives, and teaching tools. The Jefferson Digital Commons allows researchers and interested readers anywhere in the world to learn about and keep up to date with Jefferson scholarship. This article has been accepted for inclusion in Phase 1 by an authorized administrator of the Jefferson Digital Commons.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract