Zur Reliabilität von Wearable Devices am Beispiel einer Premium Multisport-Smartwatch

Abstract

Zusammenfassung Wearable Devices versprechen durch ihre motivierende Wirkung einen wichtigen Beitrag zur Bindung des Individuums an körperlich-sportliche Aktivitäten und somit zum Aufbau und Erhalt von Gesundheit und Leistungsfähigkeit in Zeiten des digitalen gesellschaftlichen Wandels. Übergeordnetes Ziel der vorliegenden Untersuchung war die Beurteilung der Testgüte von Wearable Devices anhand eines marktrelevanten Gerätes, der Garmin fēnix® 5. Als Forschungsdesiderat wurde der Reliabilitätsaspekt der Methodenkonkordanz identifiziert. Zur Überprüfung der Methodenkonkordanz wurden das Stresslevel bei kognitiver Stressinduktion, der Kalorienverbrauch bei moderater Ausdauerlaufbelastung sowie die maximale Sauerstoffaufnahme bei Laufausbelastung von 30 männlichen Probanden (Alter: 23,13 ± 2,5 Jahre; BMI: 24,95 ± 2,45 kg/m2) mit der Garmin fēnix® 5 bestimmt und die Ergebnisse mit denen im Feld gängigen Referenzmethoden Elektrokardiographie, Indirekte Kalorimetrie bzw. Spiroergometrie verglichen. Zur rechnerischen Überprüfung der Methodenkonkordanz diente Lin’s Konkordanzkorrelationskoeffizient (CCCLin). Die Ergebnisse zeigen eine hohe Präzision der Garmin fēnix® 5 im Vergleich mit der Referenzmethode Elektrokardiographie hinsichtlich der Messung des notwendigerweise z-standardisierten Stressparameters (p = 0,89) sowie eine gerade mittlere exakte intrainidividuelle Konkordanz mit der Referenzmethode Indirekte Kalorimetrie bzw. Spiroergometrie hinsichtlich der Messung des Parameters Kalorienverbrauch (CCCLin = 0,43 [p = 0,52, Cb = 0,82]) bzw. maximale Sauerstoffaufnahme (CCCLin = 0,50 [p = 0,77, Cb = 0,66]). Die Garmin fēnix® 5 kann somit zumindest bei erstmaliger Verwendung nicht als hinreichend konkordante Alternative zu den gängigen aktivitäts- und leistungsbezogenen Referenzmethoden empfohlen werden.

Validity of Estimating the Maximal Oxygen Consumption by Consumer Wearables: A Systematic Review with Meta-analysis and Expert Statement of the INTERLIVE Network

“…Furthermore, none of the included articles reported whether the gas analyzer used both VO 2 and VCO 2 for VO 2max assessment, even though it is known that systems without CO 2 sensors decrease the precision and should be treated with caution [50]. Lastly, four studies [39,42,44,47] did not clarify whether the device was calibrated [45], and we recommend that a proper calibration process according to the manufacturer's instructions be performed before the VO 2max assessment. We urge…”

“…Therefore, the difference in limits of agreement was smaller by 5.4 ml•kg −1 •min −1 in exercise tests compared to the resting conditions. The limits of agreement in the different studies using the resting conditions ranged from ± 17.75 [40] to ± 38.97 ml•kg −1 •min −1 [41], while it spanned from ± 11.18 [42] to ± 23.53 ml•kg −1 •min −1 [25] in the exercise tests. Lastly, studies using PPG technology in the HR recording had a greater span of the limits of agreement in comparison with those using chest strap in the exercise tests…”

“…In brief, indirect calorimetry measures VO 2 and VCO 2 concentrations and calculates the respiratory exchange ratio (RER), allowing for the obtainment of VO 2max while exercising [45]. The gas analysis systems used were reported in all studies, where Parvo Medics was the most popular brand, used in ten studies [27-31, 37, 38, 40, 44, 46], followed by Cosmed [25,47] and Metalyzer [39,42], with two studies each. Although the validity and reliability of indirect calorimetry systems may seem obvious, available devices are not always reliable [48,49] and only one of the included studies provided a reference with regards to the validity within the study [29].…”

“…Although the validity and reliability of indirect calorimetry systems may seem obvious, available devices are not always reliable [48,49] and only one of the included studies provided a reference with regards to the validity within the study [29]. Similarly, only two studies included in this review specified whether the gas exchange was recorded breath by breath [39,42]. Furthermore, none of the included articles reported whether the gas analyzer used both VO 2 and VCO 2 for VO 2max assessment, even though it is known that systems without CO 2 sensors decrease the precision and should be treated with caution [50].…”

“…Within the included studies in this review, eight validated the VO 2max estimations of Polar ® devices (models: A300, S410, F11, FT40, F6, RS300X, and two V800) [27,28,31,37,39,40,47,51], five validated Garmin ® devices (models: Fenix 3, Fenix 5X, Forerunner 920 XT, and GF5) [29,30,39,42,44], and two validated Fitbit ® devices (models: two Charge 2) [25,46]. However, several other brands currently claim to provide VO 2max estimations, such as Apple, Tom-Tom, Huawei, Suunto, Withings, and Coros (Supplementary Material 8; see the electronic supplementary material).…”