Skip to search boxSkip to navigationSkip to main content

Mobile health apps for QT interval measurement: A systematic review

  • Fabian A. Chavez-Ecos
    ,
  • Leonardo J. Uribe-Cavero
    ,
  • Rodrigo Chavez-Ecos
    ,
  • Sebastián Arias-Arias
    ,
  • Miguel A. Chavez-Gutarra
    ,
  • Renee Montesinos-Segura
*Corresponding author for this work
  • Universidad Científica del Sur
    ,
  • Red de Cardiología y Salud Pública (RCSP)
    ,
  • Universidad Nacional San Luis Gonzaga de Ica
    ,
  • Instituto Nacional Cardiovascular Carlos Alberto Peschiera Carrillo, EsSalud
    ,
Research Output:
Contribution to journal
Article
Peer-review

Publication Information

Output type

Research Output:
Contribution to journal
Article
Peer-review

Original language

English

Article number

154041

Journal (Volume, Issue Number)

Journal of Electrocardiology (Volume 92)

Publication milestones

  • Published - 01/09/2025

Publication status

Published - 01/09/2025

ISSN

0022-0736

Publication IDs

  • Scopus: 105009695331

Abstract

Background: The QT interval, which reflects ventricular electrical activity, is a key marker for assessing the risk of life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias and sudden cardiac death. Mobile health applications (mHAs) have recently been developed to facilitate QTc measurement; however, these apps show considerable variation in quality and functionality, and many need clinical validation. Methods: We conducted a systematic review and evaluated QTc-focused mHAs across Apple iOS, Google Play, and Microsoft Store. Eligible apps that incorporated validated QTc correction formulas, such as Bazett, Fridericia, or Framingham, were available in English or Spanish. Quality and functionality were assessed using the Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS) and IMS criteria. Results: Of the 88 initially identified apps, 12 met the inclusion criteria. The highest MARS and functionality scores were achieved by “EP QTc by EP Studios,” noted for its range of QTc correction formulas, followed by “QTc-Calculator by Marian Stiehler.” Overall, apps showed significant variability in quality, indicating a lack of standardized features across platforms. Conclusion: This review highlights the variability in QTc-focused mHAs and the need for rigorous evaluation. Although these apps could enhance arrhythmia monitoring, few meet the standards necessary for clinical practice, emphasizing the importance of validation before integration into healthcare settings.