Validity of Mobile-Based Technology vs Direct Observation in Measuring Number of Steps and Distance Walked in 6 Minutes

Poojary, Joshita; Arora, Esha; Britto, A C de; Polen, Zahra; Arena, Ross; Babu, Abraham Samuel

doi:10.1016/j.mayocp.2018.09.003

Cited by 4 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A total of 90 studies (979 comparisons) examined wearable device step count measurements compared with reference standard criterion measures of manual counting [ 32 , 34 - 38 , 42 , 46 , 47 , 50 - 53 , 57 , 58 , 72 , 80 - 84 , 88 - 102 , 109 , 114 - 125 , 138 - 141 , 144 - 147 , 149 - 153 , 158 - 161 , 165 , 169 - 171 , 173 ] and accelerometry [ 20 , 60 , 64 - 66 , 85 , 103 , 109 , 126 - 128 , 148 , 154 , 164 ] ( Multimedia Appendix 6 ). Of these, 67 studies recruited healthy adults (mean age 35.4 years, SD 17.4 years), 20 studies recruited adults living with limited mobility/chronic diseases (mean age 60.1 years, SD 10.5 years), two studies recruited children living with limited mobility/chronic diseases (mean age 12.5 years, SD 2.9 years), and one study recruited healthy children (mean age 3.7 years, SD 0.6 years).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Fuller

Colwell

Low

et al. 2020

JMIR Mhealth Uhealth

413

278

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Consumer-wearable activity trackers are small electronic devices that record fitness and health-related measures. Objective The purpose of this systematic review was to examine the validity and reliability of commercial wearables in measuring step count, heart rate, and energy expenditure. Methods We identified devices to be included in the review. Database searches were conducted in PubMed, Embase, and SPORTDiscus, and only articles published in the English language up to May 2019 were considered. Studies were excluded if they did not identify the device used and if they did not examine the validity or reliability of the device. Studies involving the general population and all special populations were included. We operationalized validity as criterion validity (as compared with other measures) and construct validity (degree to which the device is measuring what it claims). Reliability measures focused on intradevice and interdevice reliability. Results We included 158 publications examining nine different commercial wearable device brands. Fitbit was by far the most studied brand. In laboratory-based settings, Fitbit, Apple Watch, and Samsung appeared to measure steps accurately. Heart rate measurement was more variable, with Apple Watch and Garmin being the most accurate and Fitbit tending toward underestimation. For energy expenditure, no brand was accurate. We also examined validity between devices within a specific brand. Conclusions Commercial wearable devices are accurate for measuring steps and heart rate in laboratory-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.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Fuller

Colwell

Low

et al. 2020

JMIR Mhealth Uhealth

413

278

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…[9] Investigators have evaluated the of use of device-based applications to measure 6MWD as a substitute for hospital-based exercise, using smart phone or physical activity monitors; to date, these studies have been inconclusive. [23,24] Furthermore, this approach is limited to patients who own a smart phone, have reliable internet access [25] and who can confidently walk outdoors. In contrast, these restrictions do not apply in the 1MSTS.…”

Section: Risk Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pulmonary Hypertension and Measurement of Exercise Capacity Remotely: Evaluation of the 1-min Sit-to-Stand Test (PERSPIRE) – a cohort study

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundMulti-parameter risk assessment is recommended to aid treatment decisions in patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension. The 1-minute sit-to-stand test has been validated for use in other respiratory illnesses. The aim of this study was to evaluate its safety in the hospital setting and potential utility in remote assessment in patients with pulmonary hypertension.MethodsIn a prospective cohort study design patients performed the 1-minute sit-to-stand and Incremental Shuttle Walk tests on the same day. The primary aim of the study was to assess safety signals and correlations with other metrics used in risk assessment.ResultsSixty patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension and 15 with chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension were enrolled. No adverse events were recorded. Post-test change in physiological parameters was lower for the 1-minute sit-to-stand than for the Incremental Shuttle Walk test in heart rate (+9.4(8.0)bpmversus+38.3(25.9)bpm (p<0.001)), oxygen saturation (−3.8(4.0)%versus−8.9(7.3)%, (p<0.01)) and systolic blood pressure (+10.1(10.5)mmHgversus+17.7(19)mmHg, p<0.001). There were significant correlations between the 1-minute-sit-to-stand and Incremental Shuttle Walking test (r= 0.702, p< 0.01), WHO FC (−0.449, p<0.01), emPHAsis-10 (−0.436, p<0.001) and NT-proBNP (−0.270, p=0.022). Ninety-seven percent of patients were willing to perform the test at home.ConclusionThis study has demonstrated the safety, sub-maximal characteristics of the 1-minute sit-to-stand test in pulmonary arterial hypertension chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension in the hospital setting, its positive correlation with the Incremental Shuttle Walk test and potential role in remote risk assessment. Further evaluation of this exercise test is now warranted.

show abstract

Criterion validity of wearable monitors and smartphone applications to measure physical activity energy expenditure in adolescents

Adamakis

2020

Sport Sci Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Validity of Mobile-Based Technology vs Direct Observation in Measuring Number of Steps and Distance Walked in 6 Minutes

Cited by 4 publications

References 8 publications

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

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

Pulmonary Hypertension and Measurement of Exercise Capacity Remotely: Evaluation of the 1-min Sit-to-Stand Test (PERSPIRE) – a cohort study

Criterion validity of wearable monitors and smartphone applications to measure physical activity energy expenditure in adolescents

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About