Accuracy of Wearable Trackers for Measuring Moderate- to Vigorous-Intensity Physical Activity: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Jessica S. Gorzelitz, Chloe Farber, R. Gangnon, L. Cadmus-Bertram
{"title":"Accuracy of Wearable Trackers for Measuring Moderate- to Vigorous-Intensity Physical Activity: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis","authors":"Jessica S. Gorzelitz, Chloe Farber, R. Gangnon, L. Cadmus-Bertram","doi":"10.1123/jmpb.2019-0072","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: The evidence base regarding validity of wearable fitness trackers for assessment and/or modification of physical activity behavior is evolving. Accurate assessment of moderate- to vigorous-intensity physical activity (MVPA) is important for measuring adherence to physical activity guidelines in the United States and abroad. Therefore, this systematic review synthesizes the state of the validation literature regarding wearable trackers and MVPA. Methods: A systematic search of the PubMed, Scopus, SPORTDiscus, and Cochrane Library databases was conducted through October 2019 (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42018103808). Studies were eligible if they reported on the validity of MVPA and used devices from Fitbit, Apple, or Garmin released in 2012 or later or available on the market at the time of review. A meta-analysis was conducted on the correlation measures comparing wearables with the ActiGraph. Results: Twenty-two studies met the inclusion criteria; all used a Fitbit device; one included a Garmin model and no Apple-device studies were found. Moderate to high correlations (.7–.9) were found between MVPA from the wearable tracker versus criterion measure (ActiGraph n = 14). Considerable heterogeneity was seen with respect to the specific definition of MVPA for the criterion device, the statistical techniques used to assess validity, and the correlations between wearable trackers and ActiGraph across studies. Conclusions: There is a need for standardization of validation methods and reporting outcomes in individual studies to allow for comparability across the evidence base. Despite the different methods utilized within studies, nearly all concluded that wearable trackers are valid for measuring MVPA.","PeriodicalId":73572,"journal":{"name":"Journal for the measurement of physical behaviour","volume":"150 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-11-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"11","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal for the measurement of physical behaviour","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1123/jmpb.2019-0072","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 11

Abstract

Background: The evidence base regarding validity of wearable fitness trackers for assessment and/or modification of physical activity behavior is evolving. Accurate assessment of moderate- to vigorous-intensity physical activity (MVPA) is important for measuring adherence to physical activity guidelines in the United States and abroad. Therefore, this systematic review synthesizes the state of the validation literature regarding wearable trackers and MVPA. Methods: A systematic search of the PubMed, Scopus, SPORTDiscus, and Cochrane Library databases was conducted through October 2019 (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42018103808). Studies were eligible if they reported on the validity of MVPA and used devices from Fitbit, Apple, or Garmin released in 2012 or later or available on the market at the time of review. A meta-analysis was conducted on the correlation measures comparing wearables with the ActiGraph. Results: Twenty-two studies met the inclusion criteria; all used a Fitbit device; one included a Garmin model and no Apple-device studies were found. Moderate to high correlations (.7–.9) were found between MVPA from the wearable tracker versus criterion measure (ActiGraph n = 14). Considerable heterogeneity was seen with respect to the specific definition of MVPA for the criterion device, the statistical techniques used to assess validity, and the correlations between wearable trackers and ActiGraph across studies. Conclusions: There is a need for standardization of validation methods and reporting outcomes in individual studies to allow for comparability across the evidence base. Despite the different methods utilized within studies, nearly all concluded that wearable trackers are valid for measuring MVPA.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
测量中强度到高强度身体活动的可穿戴追踪器的准确性:系统回顾和荟萃分析
背景:关于可穿戴健身追踪器在评估和/或改变身体活动行为方面的有效性的证据基础正在发展。在美国和国外,对中强度到高强度体力活动(MVPA)的准确评估对于衡量身体活动指南的依从性很重要。因此,本系统综述综合了关于可穿戴跟踪器和MVPA的验证文献的现状。方法:系统检索PubMed、Scopus、SPORTDiscus和Cochrane Library数据库,检索时间截止到2019年10月(PROSPERO注册号:CRD42018103808)。如果研究报告了MVPA的有效性,并且使用了Fitbit、Apple或Garmin在2012年或之后发布的设备,或者在审查时在市场上销售的设备,则研究符合条件。对可穿戴设备与ActiGraph的相关指标进行了荟萃分析。结果:22项研究符合纳入标准;都使用了Fitbit设备;其中一项包括Garmin模型,没有发现苹果设备的研究。可穿戴跟踪器的MVPA与标准测量值之间存在中度至高度相关性(0.7 - 0.9)(ActiGraph n = 14)。在标准装置的MVPA的具体定义、用于评估有效性的统计技术以及研究中可穿戴追踪器和ActiGraph之间的相关性方面,可以看到相当大的异质性。结论:有必要对单个研究的验证方法和报告结果进行标准化,以允许整个证据基础的可比性。尽管研究中使用了不同的方法,但几乎所有的研究都得出结论,可穿戴式跟踪器对于测量MVPA是有效的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Influence of Accelerometer Calibration on the Estimation of Objectively Measured Physical Activity: The Tromsø Study Criterion Validity of Accelerometers in Determining Knee-Flexion Angles During Sitting in a Laboratory Setting Comparability of 24-hr Activity Cycle Outputs From ActiGraph Counts Generated in ActiLife and RStudio Comparison of Sleep and Physical Activity Metrics From Wrist-Worn ActiGraph wGT3X-BT and GT9X Accelerometers During Free-Living in Adults Pre- Versus Postmeal Sedentary Duration—Impact on Postprandial Glucose in Older Adults With Overweight or Obesity
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1