9
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Accuracy of consumer-level and research-grade activity trackers in ambulatory settings in older adults

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Wrist-worn activity trackers have experienced a tremendous growth lately and studies on the accuracy of mainstream trackers used by older adults are needed. This study explores the performance of six trackers (Fitbit Charge2, Garmin VivoSmart HR+, Philips Health Watch, Withings Pulse Ox, ActiGraph GT9X-BT, Omron HJ-72OITC) for estimating: steps, travelled distance, and heart-rate measurements for a cohort of older adults. Eighteen older adults completed a structured protocol involving walking tasks, simulated household activities, and sedentary activities. Less standardized activities were also included, such as: dusting, using a walking aid, or playing cards, in order to simulate real-life scenarios. Wrist-mounted and chest/waist-mounted devices were used. Gold-standards included treadmill, ECG-based chest strap, direct observation or video recording according to the activity and parameter. Every tracker showed a decreasing accuracy with slower walking speed, which resulted in a significant step under-counting. A large mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) was found for every monitor at slower walking speeds with the lowest reported MAPE at 2 km/h being 7.78%, increasing to 20.88% at 1.5 km/h, and 44.53% at 1 km/h. During household activities, the MAPE climbing up/down-stairs ranged from 8.38–19.3% and 10.06–19.01% (dominant and non-dominant arm), respectively. Waist-worn devices showed a more uniform performance. However, unstructured activities (e.g. dusting, playing cards), and using a walking aid represent a challenge for all wrist-worn trackers as evidenced by large MAPE (> 57.66% for dusting, > 67.32% when using a walking aid). Poor performance in travelled distance estimation was also evident during walking at low speeds and climbing up/down-stairs (MAPE > 71.44% and > 48.3%, respectively). Regarding heart-rate measurement, there was no significant difference (p-values > 0.05) in accuracy between trackers placed on the dominant or non-dominant arm. Concordant with existing literature, while the mean error was limited (between -3.57 bpm and 4.21 bpm), a single heart-rate measurement could be underestimated up to 30 beats-per-minute.

          This study showed a number of limitations of consumer-level wrist-based activity trackers for older adults. Therefore caution is required when used, in healthcare or in research settings, to measure activity in older adults.

          Related collections

          Most cited references43

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Wearable Sensors for Human Activity Monitoring: A Review

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Accuracy of Fitbit Devices: Systematic Review and Narrative Syntheses of Quantitative Data

            Background Although designed as a consumer product to help motivate individuals to be physically active, Fitbit activity trackers are becoming increasingly popular as measurement tools in physical activity and health promotion research and are also commonly used to inform health care decisions. Objective The objective of this review was to systematically evaluate and report measurement accuracy for Fitbit activity trackers in controlled and free-living settings. Methods We conducted electronic searches using PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, and SPORTDiscus databases with a supplementary Google Scholar search. We considered original research published in English comparing Fitbit versus a reference- or research-standard criterion in healthy adults and those living with any health condition or disability. We assessed risk of bias using a modification of the Consensus-Based Standards for the Selection of Health Status Measurement Instruments. We explored measurement accuracy for steps, energy expenditure, sleep, time in activity, and distance using group percentage differences as the common rubric for error comparisons. We conducted descriptive analyses for frequency of accuracy comparisons within a ±3% error in controlled and ±10% error in free-living settings and assessed for potential bias of over- or underestimation. We secondarily explored how variations in body placement, ambulation speed, or type of activity influenced accuracy. Results We included 67 studies. Consistent evidence indicated that Fitbit devices were likely to meet acceptable accuracy for step count approximately half the time, with a tendency to underestimate steps in controlled testing and overestimate steps in free-living settings. Findings also suggested a greater tendency to provide accurate measures for steps during normal or self-paced walking with torso placement, during jogging with wrist placement, and during slow or very slow walking with ankle placement in adults with no mobility limitations. Consistent evidence indicated that Fitbit devices were unlikely to provide accurate measures for energy expenditure in any testing condition. Evidence from a few studies also suggested that, compared with research-grade accelerometers, Fitbit devices may provide similar measures for time in bed and time sleeping, while likely markedly overestimating time spent in higher-intensity activities and underestimating distance during faster-paced ambulation. However, further accuracy studies are warranted. Our point estimations for mean or median percentage error gave equal weighting to all accuracy comparisons, possibly misrepresenting the true point estimate for measurement bias for some of the testing conditions we examined. Conclusions Other than for measures of steps in adults with no limitations in mobility, discretion should be used when considering the use of Fitbit devices as an outcome measurement tool in research or to inform health care decisions, as there are seemingly a limited number of situations where the device is likely to provide accurate measurement.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Reliability and validity of ten consumer activity trackers

              Background Activity trackers can potentially stimulate users to increase their physical activity behavior. The aim of this study was to examine the reliability and validity of ten consumer activity trackers for measuring step count in both laboratory and free-living conditions. Method Healthy adult volunteers (n = 33) walked twice on a treadmill (4.8 km/h) for 30 min while wearing ten different activity trackers (i.e. Lumoback, Fitbit Flex, Jawbone Up, Nike+ Fuelband SE, Misfit Shine, Withings Pulse, Fitbit Zip, Omron HJ-203, Yamax Digiwalker SW-200 and Moves mobile application). In free-living conditions, 56 volunteers wore the same activity trackers for one working day. Test-retest reliability was analyzed with the Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC). Validity was evaluated by comparing each tracker with the gold standard (Optogait system for laboratory and ActivPAL for free-living conditions), using paired samples t-tests, mean absolute percentage errors, correlations and Bland-Altman plots. Results Test-retest analysis revealed high reliability for most trackers except for the Omron (ICC .14), Moves app (ICC .37) and Nike+ Fuelband (ICC .53). The mean absolute percentage errors of the trackers in laboratory and free-living conditions respectively, were: Lumoback (−0.2, −0.4), Fibit Flex (−5.7, 3.7), Jawbone Up (−1.0, 1.4), Nike+ Fuelband (−18, −24), Misfit Shine (0.2, 1.1), Withings Pulse (−0.5, −7.9), Fitbit Zip (−0.3, 1.2), Omron (2.5, −0.4), Digiwalker (−1.2, −5.9), and Moves app (9.6, −37.6). Bland-Altman plots demonstrated that the limits of agreement varied from 46 steps (Fitbit Zip) to 2422 steps (Nike+ Fuelband) in the laboratory condition, and 866 steps (Fitbit Zip) to 5150 steps (Moves app) in the free-living condition. Conclusion The reliability and validity of most trackers for measuring step count is good. The Fitbit Zip is the most valid whereas the reliability and validity of the Nike+ Fuelband is low.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Formal analysisRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: SoftwareRole: SupervisionRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Formal analysisRole: MethodologyRole: ResourcesRole: SoftwareRole: VisualizationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Formal analysisRole: MethodologyRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Formal analysisRole: MethodologyRole: ResourcesRole: SupervisionRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Funding acquisitionRole: Project administrationRole: SupervisionRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Project administrationRole: SupervisionRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Editor
                Journal
                PLoS One
                PLoS ONE
                plos
                plosone
                PLoS ONE
                Public Library of Science (San Francisco, CA USA )
                1932-6203
                21 May 2019
                2019
                : 14
                : 5
                : e0216891
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Tyndall National Institute, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland
                [2 ] Centre for Gerontology and Rehabilitation, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland
                Baylor College of Medicine, UNITED STATES
                Author notes

                Competing Interests: The authors declare that there are no known conflicts of interest associated with this publication.

                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7752-2240
                Article
                PONE-D-19-00617
                10.1371/journal.pone.0216891
                6529154
                31112585
                c7e284d9-1932-4358-8436-820f374f179e
                © 2019 Tedesco et al

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

                History
                : 8 January 2019
                : 30 April 2019
                Page count
                Figures: 2, Tables: 2, Pages: 17
                Funding
                Funded by: funder-id http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100010676, H2020 Societal Challenges;
                Award ID: 689996
                Funded by: funder-id http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100001602, Science Foundation Ireland;
                Award ID: 13/RC/2077
                Funded by: funder-id http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100013276, Interreg;
                Award ID: SenDOC
                This publication has emanated from research supported by EU H2020 funded project ProACT under grant agreement No. 689996. Aspects of this work have been supported in part by a research grant from Science Foundation Ireland (SFI) and is co-funded under the European Regional Development Fund under Grant Number 13/RC/2077. Aspects of this work have been supported in part by INTERREG NPA funded project SenDOC.
                Categories
                Research Article
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Physiology
                Biological Locomotion
                Walking
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Physiology
                Biological Locomotion
                Walking
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Cardiology
                Heart Rate
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Anatomy
                Musculoskeletal System
                Body Limbs
                Arms
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Anatomy
                Musculoskeletal System
                Body Limbs
                Arms
                People and Places
                Population Groupings
                Age Groups
                Elderly
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Anatomy
                Musculoskeletal System
                Body Limbs
                Legs
                Ankles
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Anatomy
                Musculoskeletal System
                Body Limbs
                Legs
                Ankles
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Anatomy
                Musculoskeletal System
                Body Limbs
                Arms
                Wrist
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Anatomy
                Musculoskeletal System
                Body Limbs
                Arms
                Wrist
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Public and Occupational Health
                Physical Activity
                Engineering and Technology
                Equipment
                Measurement Equipment
                Custom metadata
                All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

                Uncategorized
                Uncategorized

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content39

                Cited by38

                Most referenced authors496