If a patient walked into your clinic tomorrow wearing a smartwatch that showed you their ECG, oxygen level, sleep pattern, and blood sugar…
would you trust the data more than your stethoscope? After all they do have quite a high accuracy
8 Likes
Smartwatch data can be incredibly useful—especially for trends over time—but I’d still rely on clinical judgment and tools like the stethoscope for a complete picture. Wearables offer great support, but they can’t replace a thorough physical exam or the context that a clinician provides. It’s about combining tech with expertise, not choosing one over the other.
4 Likes
Wearables are revolutionizing how we track health, but clinical intuition and experience are irreplaceable. They should complement—not compete with—each other
1 Like
It should be a combination of both of clinical judgement and technical finding
1 Like
Smartwatch data can offer valuable insights, but it complements not replaces the clinical judgment and physical exam. Technology aids, but the stethoscope still tells stories machines can’t always catch.
- Yes, we can consider the readings but not over the clinical tests, it can never replace the clinical practices.
- Proper procedure following is very important.
- They can serve helpful for temporary basis, but clinical techniques are irreplicable.
Smartwatches can be reliable but clinical data is more efficient
The wearables like smart watches, smart rings offer valuable insights.
No doubt about this but a doctor’s degree cannot be equated to this!
Stethoscope , if I was a doctor 
but yeah I am not :”)
Yeah, nowadays the wearables are quite accurate! But is always safe to correlate clinically and reassess using traditional instruments!
We must correlate the findings clinicically .
No because I don’t believe on that data
Social media doctors can help educate the public, but if they share misinformation, they can also mislead society.
Compare both the findings.
If a patient walked in with all that data from their smartwatch, I’d actually be happy because it shows they’re taking an interest in their health and that’s always a good thing.
Smartwatches can give useful info, like heart rate, oxygen, sleep or even sugar levels and they’re getting pretty accurate too. But I wouldn’t fully rely on it alone. My stethoscope, my experience and an actual chat with the patient still matter just as much. So, it’s not about trusting one more than the other, it’s about putting it all together to understand the full picture.
I am not doctor, so i do trust on my watch 
That’s a great thought experiment—and one that’s becoming less hypothetical by the day. Smartwatches and other wearable health devices have made serious strides in accuracy, especially for parameters like heart rate. They can provide continuous, real-time data.
But would I trust them more than a stethoscope? Not quite. The two tools play different roles. A stethoscope offers immediate, nuanced, hands-on assessment—the rhythm and tone of a heartbeat—things a smartwatch can’t yet interpret with that depth.
In emergency conditions, they can be act as a boon for any individual but medicos should not fully rely on the smart watches.
As by assessing clinically - these will give the information from the all aspects which can help the medicos to know the factors responsible for all the symptoms which a smartwatch can’t.
I feel carrying out your own set of vital check and investigations should be done regardless of their presentation in the clinic. The smartwatch data can prove extremely useful for patients to keep monitoring their vitals while at home… especially if they tend to develop CV accidents.