Reliability and Validity of Commercially Available Wearable Devices for Measuring Steps, Energy Expenditure, and Heart Rate: Systematic Review (Preprint)

Abstract

BACKGROUND Consumer-wearable activity trackers are small electronic devices that record fitness and health-related measures. The purpose of this systematic review is to examine the validity and reliability of commercial wearables in measuring step count, heart rate, and energy expenditure. OBJECTIVE To outline and summarize information about the validity and reliability of wearables in measuring step count, heart rate, and energy expenditure in any population METHODS We identified devices to be included in the review. Database searches were conducted in PubMed, Embase, and SPORTDiscus, and only included articles published in the English language up to May 2019. Studies were excluded if they did not identify the device used and if they did not examine the validity and/or reliability of a device. Studies including the general population and all special populations were included. We operationalized validity as criterion (as compared to other measures) and construct (degree to which device is measuring what it purports) validity. Reliability measures focused on intradevice and interdevice reliability. RESULTS We included 158 publications examining 9 different commercial wearable device brands. Fitbit was by far the most studied brand. In lab-based settings Fitbit, Apple Watch, and Samsung appeared to measure steps accurately. Heart rate was more variable with Apple Watch and Garmin being the most accurate, and Fitbit tending towards underestimation. For energy expenditure, no brand was accurate. We also examined validity between devices within a specific brand. CONCLUSIONS Commercial wearable devices are accurate in measuring steps and heart rate in lab based settings, but this varies by the manufacturer and device type. Devices are constantly being upgraded and redesigned to new models, suggesting the need for more current reviews and research. CLINICALTRIAL NA

Intelligence-Based Spine Care Model: A New Era of Research and Clinical Decision-Making

“…smart phones and watches) have been highly promoted as a means to improve health and modulate physical activity. Data collected from wearables is not entirely reliable, accuracy varies between manufacturers, 97 and the devices themselves have not demonstrated a meaningful impact on health care outcomes. 98 This is not to say consumer wearables are without the potential for clinical utility, as the Apple Watch has been shown to accurately detect paroxysmal atrial fibrillation.…”

Wearable biosensors have the potential to monitor physiological changes associated with opioid overdose among people who use drugs: A proof-of-concept study in a real-world setting

“…The research team reviewed 6 potential devices (Fuller et al, 2020) which included the Wavelet Health/Biostrap, Fitbit Cha ge 3, AutoSense, Oxitone, a smartphone sonar system (Nandakumar et al, 2019), and the Spire® Health Tag (Spire® Health, https://www.spirehealth.com/). We selected the Spire® Health Tag based on various factors: the one-year battery life, discrete size (5.6 cm x 1.3 cm x 0.5 cm), and unobtrusive placement (attached to underwear waistband for self-identified men or wing of bra for self-identified women).…”

Individually optimized estimation of energy expenditure in rescue workers using a tri-axial accelerometer and heart rate monitor

“…The HR increases almost proportionally to exercise intensity and intra-individual oxygen uptake (% _ VO 2 max), and its dynamics can influence a number of different factors, such as body temperature, food intake, body posture, and individual cardiorespiratory fitness level (Hill and Trowbridge, 1998). However, the use of HR wearable devices, most of which are wrist-worn devices, may underestimate energy expenditure and provide inaccurate measures of energy expenditure compared with reference standard criterion measures, including direct calorimetry and indirect calorimetry (Fuller et al, 2020;Chevance et al, 2022). Summarizing the total energy expenditure by most of the aforementioned devices, such as accelerometer, HR, GPS, and combined motion sensors, provides a more accurate estimation of energy expenditure at light-to-moderate intensities; by contrast, underestimation increases at very light and higher intensity activities (Aparicio-Ugarriza et al, 2015).…”