Comparative Analysis of 6-Lead and Single-Lead Consumer-Grade Electrocardiograms: Diagnostic Accuracy, Numerical Agreement, and Inter-Rater Reliability
Clicks: 1
ID: 317036
2026
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
0.0
/100
1 views
0 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Ranked #31 of 55 articles by views in European Heart Journal - Digital Health
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
Abstract Background Consumer-grade electrocardiogram (ECG) devices enable accessible rhythm monitoring. Recently developed six-lead handheld ECGs promise improved signal quality and diagnostic performance; however, comparative validation remains limited. Objective Using 12-lead ECGs as reference, we compared diagnostic performance and quantitative agreement of a 6-lead and single-lead consumer ECGs. Methods In this prospective single-center study, 194 arrhythmia-clinic patients (498 paired recordings) underwent simultaneous 10-second 12-lead and 30-second 6-lead ECG acquisition, followed by sequential 30-second single-lead recording. Two blinded electrophysiologists interpreted ECGs. Diagnostic performance for predefined rhythm categories (sinus rhythm, atrial/ventricular premature complex, atrial fibrillation/flutter/tachycardia, atrioventricular block, others) was assessed by sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy. Waveform agreement was evaluated using Bland–Altman analysis and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) accounting for repeated measures. Results Sensitivity was higher for the 6-lead ECG for ectopic beats, atrial flutter, and first-degree atrioventricular block, with comparable specificity across categories. Overall diagnostic accuracy was 98.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 97.4–99.6) for the 6-lead and 96.9% (94.7–98.7) for the single-lead ECG. Agreement with the 12-lead ECG was higher for the 6-lead device for PR interval (ICC 0.89; 0.85–0.92) and QRS amplitude (0.96; 0.94–0.97) than for the single-lead device (0.57; 0.48–0.63 and 0.04; −0.13–0.21, respectively). Bland–Altman analysis demonstrated generally narrower limits of agreement for the 6-lead ECG. Findings were consistent in patient-level sensitivity analyses. Conclusions The 6-lead handheld ECG demonstrated a higher point estimate for diagnostic accuracy and closer agreement with the 12-lead ECG than the single-lead smartwatch ECG, supporting its use for arrhythmia assessment and interval measurement.
| Reference Key |
openalex_W7164343032
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | Myoung Jung Kim, Sujeong Eom, Juwon Kim, Juwon Kim, Seung-Jung Park, K M Park, Young Keun On, Sunghoon Joo, Mineok Chang, Y Y Na, Minje Park, Jeonghwa Lim, T Yu, Hyun Jin Ahn, Ju Youn Kim, Ju Youn Kim |
| Journal | European Heart Journal - Digital Health |
| Year | 2026 |
| DOI |
10.1093/ehjdh/ztag086
|
| URL | |
| Keywords | Keywords not found |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.