Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41513748›Full record

ArticleNPJ digital medicine2026

The accuracy of Apple Watch measurements: a living systematic review and meta-analysis.

Rory Lambe, Maximus Baldwin, Ben O'Grady, Moritz Schumann, Brian Caulfield, Cailbhe Doherty

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in NPJ digital medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Rory LambeSchool of Public Health, Physiotherapy and Sports Science, University College Dublin, Dublin 4, Ireland. rory.lambe@ucdconnect.ie.
Maximus BaldwinSchool of Public Health, Physiotherapy and Sports Science, University College Dublin, Dublin 4, Ireland.
Ben O'GradySchool of Public Health, Physiotherapy and Sports Science, University College Dublin, Dublin 4, Ireland.
Moritz SchumannSchool of Medicine and Health, Experimental Exercise Science, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Brian CaulfieldSchool of Public Health, Physiotherapy and Sports Science, University College Dublin, Dublin 4, Ireland.
Cailbhe DohertySchool of Public Health, Physiotherapy and Sports Science, University College Dublin, Dublin 4, Ireland.

Funding

The Science Foundation Ireland 22/NCF/FD/10949
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Apple Watch provides continuous monitoring of physiological and behavioural health metrics, increasingly used to support health-care delivery. Yet, evidence regarding its measurement accuracy remains limited. We aimed to assess the accuracy of measurements from Apple Watch. We searched nine databases from inception to September 24, 2025, with no restrictions on language or publication type. Eligible studies validated any Apple Watch health metric against a criterion method. The primary outcome was the agreement between Apple Watch and the criterion. We included 82 studies, which assessed 14 health metrics (430,052 participants; pooled mean age 41.3 years [SD 13.3]). Bland-Altman meta-analysis showed a small underestimation of heart rate, although limits of agreement (LoA) indicated moderate measurement variability (mean bias -0.27 bpm [95% CI -0.72-0.17]; LoA -7.19 to 6.64). For atrial fibrillation detection, Apple Watch was more specific than sensitive (specificity 0.91 [95% CI 0.81-0.96]; sensitivity 0.79 [95% CI 0.61-0.90]). For blood oxygen saturation, there was low mean bias (-0.04% [95% CI -0.42-0.35]) but wide limits of agreement (-4.00 to 3.94). Accuracy for sleep and step count was moderate, whereas error for energy expenditure was inconsistent and frequently large. Measurement accuracy varied by metric, measurement conditions, and individual physiology. Longitudinal validation of key clinical metrics, including vital signs, is needed to inform clinical practice and policy. This study was registered with PROSPERO, CRD42023481841.

Identifiers

PMID41513748
PMCPMC12823594

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.