与可穿戴设备同步:评估消费类可穿戴技术在健康测量中的准确性的系统性综述。

IF 9.3 1区 医学 Q1 SPORT SCIENCES Sports Medicine Pub Date : 2024-11-01 Epub Date: 2024-07-30 DOI:10.1007/s40279-024-02077-2
Cailbhe Doherty, Maximus Baldwin, Alison Keogh, Brian Caulfield, Rob Argent
{"title":"与可穿戴设备同步:评估消费类可穿戴技术在健康测量中的准确性的系统性综述。","authors":"Cailbhe Doherty, Maximus Baldwin, Alison Keogh, Brian Caulfield, Rob Argent","doi":"10.1007/s40279-024-02077-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Consumer wearable technologies have become ubiquitous, with clinical and non-clinical populations leveraging a variety of devices to quantify various aspects of health and wellness. However, the accuracy with which these devices measure biometric outcomes such as heart rate, sleep and physical activity remains unclear.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To conduct a 'living' (i.e. ongoing) evaluation of the accuracy of consumer wearable technologies in measuring various physiological outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic search of the literature was conducted in the following scientific databases: MEDLINE via PubMed, Embase, Cinahl and SPORTDiscus via EBSCO. The inclusion criteria required systematic reviews or meta-analyses that evaluated the validation of consumer wearable devices against accepted reference standards. In addition to publication details, review protocol, device specifics and a summary of the authors' results, we extracted data on mean absolute percentage error (MAPE), pooled absolute bias, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and mean absolute differences.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 904 identified studies through the initial search, 24 systematic reviews met our inclusion criteria; these systematic reviews included 249 non-duplicate validation studies of consumer wearable devices involving 430,465 participants (43% female). Of the commercially available wearable devices released to date, approximately 11% have been validated for at least one biometric outcome. However, because a typical device can measure a multitude of biometric outcomes, the number of validation studies conducted represents just 3.5% of the total needed for a comprehensive evaluation of these devices. For heart rate, wearables showed a mean bias of ± 3%. In arrhythmia detection, wearables exhibited a pooled sensitivity and specificity of 100% and 95%, respectively. For aerobic capacity, wearables significantly overestimated VO<sub>2max</sub> by ± 15.24% during resting tests and ± 9.83% during exercise tests. Physical activity intensity measurements had a mean absolute error ranging from 29 to 80%, depending on the intensity of the activity being undertaken. Wearables mostly underestimated step counts (mean absolute percentage errors ranging from - 9 to  12%) and energy expenditure (mean bias =  - 3 kcal per minute, or - 3%, with error ranging from - 21.27 to 14.76%). For blood oxygen saturation, wearables showed a mean absolute difference of up to 2.0%. Sleep measurement showed a tendency to overestimate total sleep time (mean absolute percentage error typically > 10%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>While consumer wearables show promise in health monitoring, a conclusive assessment of their accuracy is impeded by pervasive heterogeneity in research outcomes and methodologies. There is a need for standardised validation protocols and collaborative industry partnerships to enhance the reliability and practical applicability of wearable technology assessments.</p><p><strong>Prospero id: </strong>CRD42023402703.</p>","PeriodicalId":21969,"journal":{"name":"Sports Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":9.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Keeping Pace with Wearables: A Living Umbrella Review of Systematic Reviews Evaluating the Accuracy of Consumer Wearable Technologies in Health Measurement.\",\"authors\":\"Cailbhe Doherty, Maximus Baldwin, Alison Keogh, Brian Caulfield, Rob Argent\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s40279-024-02077-2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Consumer wearable technologies have become ubiquitous, with clinical and non-clinical populations leveraging a variety of devices to quantify various aspects of health and wellness. However, the accuracy with which these devices measure biometric outcomes such as heart rate, sleep and physical activity remains unclear.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To conduct a 'living' (i.e. ongoing) evaluation of the accuracy of consumer wearable technologies in measuring various physiological outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic search of the literature was conducted in the following scientific databases: MEDLINE via PubMed, Embase, Cinahl and SPORTDiscus via EBSCO. The inclusion criteria required systematic reviews or meta-analyses that evaluated the validation of consumer wearable devices against accepted reference standards. In addition to publication details, review protocol, device specifics and a summary of the authors' results, we extracted data on mean absolute percentage error (MAPE), pooled absolute bias, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and mean absolute differences.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 904 identified studies through the initial search, 24 systematic reviews met our inclusion criteria; these systematic reviews included 249 non-duplicate validation studies of consumer wearable devices involving 430,465 participants (43% female). Of the commercially available wearable devices released to date, approximately 11% have been validated for at least one biometric outcome. However, because a typical device can measure a multitude of biometric outcomes, the number of validation studies conducted represents just 3.5% of the total needed for a comprehensive evaluation of these devices. For heart rate, wearables showed a mean bias of ± 3%. In arrhythmia detection, wearables exhibited a pooled sensitivity and specificity of 100% and 95%, respectively. For aerobic capacity, wearables significantly overestimated VO<sub>2max</sub> by ± 15.24% during resting tests and ± 9.83% during exercise tests. Physical activity intensity measurements had a mean absolute error ranging from 29 to 80%, depending on the intensity of the activity being undertaken. Wearables mostly underestimated step counts (mean absolute percentage errors ranging from - 9 to  12%) and energy expenditure (mean bias =  - 3 kcal per minute, or - 3%, with error ranging from - 21.27 to 14.76%). For blood oxygen saturation, wearables showed a mean absolute difference of up to 2.0%. Sleep measurement showed a tendency to overestimate total sleep time (mean absolute percentage error typically > 10%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>While consumer wearables show promise in health monitoring, a conclusive assessment of their accuracy is impeded by pervasive heterogeneity in research outcomes and methodologies. There is a need for standardised validation protocols and collaborative industry partnerships to enhance the reliability and practical applicability of wearable technology assessments.</p><p><strong>Prospero id: </strong>CRD42023402703.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":21969,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Sports Medicine\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":9.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Sports Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-024-02077-2\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/7/30 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"SPORT SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sports Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-024-02077-2","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/30 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SPORT SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:消费类可穿戴技术已变得无处不在,临床和非临床人群利用各种设备来量化健康和保健的各个方面。然而,这些设备测量心率、睡眠和体力活动等生物计量结果的准确性仍不清楚:对消费类可穿戴技术测量各种生理结果的准确性进行一次 "活 "的(即持续的)评估:在以下科学数据库中进行了系统的文献检索:方法:在以下科学数据库中对文献进行了系统检索:PubMed 的 MEDLINE、Embase、Cinahl 和 EBSCO 的 SPORTDiscus。纳入标准要求根据公认的参考标准对消费类可穿戴设备的验证进行评估的系统综述或荟萃分析。除了出版物详情、综述方案、设备具体情况和作者的结果摘要外,我们还提取了平均绝对百分比误差(MAPE)、汇总绝对偏差、类内相关系数(ICC)和平均绝对差异等数据:在通过初步搜索确定的 904 项研究中,有 24 项系统综述符合我们的纳入标准;这些系统综述包括 249 项关于消费类可穿戴设备的非重复验证研究,涉及 430,465 名参与者(43% 为女性)。在迄今为止发布的市售可穿戴设备中,约有 11% 已通过至少一项生物计量结果的验证。然而,由于一个典型的设备可以测量多种生物测量结果,因此所进行的验证研究数量仅占对这些设备进行全面评估所需总数的 3.5%。在心率方面,可穿戴设备的平均偏差为 ± 3%。在心律失常检测方面,可穿戴设备的综合灵敏度和特异度分别为 100% 和 95%。在有氧能力方面,可穿戴设备在静息测试和运动测试中分别高估了± 15.24%和± 9.83%的最大氧饱和度。体力活动强度测量的平均绝对误差在 29% 到 80% 之间,具体取决于活动强度。可穿戴设备大多低估了步数(平均绝对百分比误差在-9%到12%之间)和能量消耗(平均偏差=-3千卡/分钟,或-3%,误差在-21.27%到14.76%之间)。在血氧饱和度方面,可穿戴设备显示的平均绝对偏差高达 2.0%。睡眠测量显示出高估总睡眠时间的趋势(平均绝对百分比误差通常大于 10%):虽然消费类可穿戴设备在健康监测方面大有可为,但研究结果和方法的普遍不一致阻碍了对其准确性的最终评估。有必要制定标准化的验证协议并建立行业合作伙伴关系,以提高可穿戴技术评估的可靠性和实际应用性:crd42023402703.
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

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
Keeping Pace with Wearables: A Living Umbrella Review of Systematic Reviews Evaluating the Accuracy of Consumer Wearable Technologies in Health Measurement.

Background: Consumer wearable technologies have become ubiquitous, with clinical and non-clinical populations leveraging a variety of devices to quantify various aspects of health and wellness. However, the accuracy with which these devices measure biometric outcomes such as heart rate, sleep and physical activity remains unclear.

Objective: To conduct a 'living' (i.e. ongoing) evaluation of the accuracy of consumer wearable technologies in measuring various physiological outcomes.

Methods: A systematic search of the literature was conducted in the following scientific databases: MEDLINE via PubMed, Embase, Cinahl and SPORTDiscus via EBSCO. The inclusion criteria required systematic reviews or meta-analyses that evaluated the validation of consumer wearable devices against accepted reference standards. In addition to publication details, review protocol, device specifics and a summary of the authors' results, we extracted data on mean absolute percentage error (MAPE), pooled absolute bias, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and mean absolute differences.

Results: Of 904 identified studies through the initial search, 24 systematic reviews met our inclusion criteria; these systematic reviews included 249 non-duplicate validation studies of consumer wearable devices involving 430,465 participants (43% female). Of the commercially available wearable devices released to date, approximately 11% have been validated for at least one biometric outcome. However, because a typical device can measure a multitude of biometric outcomes, the number of validation studies conducted represents just 3.5% of the total needed for a comprehensive evaluation of these devices. For heart rate, wearables showed a mean bias of ± 3%. In arrhythmia detection, wearables exhibited a pooled sensitivity and specificity of 100% and 95%, respectively. For aerobic capacity, wearables significantly overestimated VO2max by ± 15.24% during resting tests and ± 9.83% during exercise tests. Physical activity intensity measurements had a mean absolute error ranging from 29 to 80%, depending on the intensity of the activity being undertaken. Wearables mostly underestimated step counts (mean absolute percentage errors ranging from - 9 to  12%) and energy expenditure (mean bias =  - 3 kcal per minute, or - 3%, with error ranging from - 21.27 to 14.76%). For blood oxygen saturation, wearables showed a mean absolute difference of up to 2.0%. Sleep measurement showed a tendency to overestimate total sleep time (mean absolute percentage error typically > 10%).

Conclusions: While consumer wearables show promise in health monitoring, a conclusive assessment of their accuracy is impeded by pervasive heterogeneity in research outcomes and methodologies. There is a need for standardised validation protocols and collaborative industry partnerships to enhance the reliability and practical applicability of wearable technology assessments.

Prospero id: CRD42023402703.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Sports Medicine
Sports Medicine 医学-运动科学
CiteScore
18.40
自引率
5.10%
发文量
165
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Sports Medicine focuses on providing definitive and comprehensive review articles that interpret and evaluate current literature, aiming to offer insights into research findings in the sports medicine and exercise field. The journal covers major topics such as sports medicine and sports science, medical syndromes associated with sport and exercise, clinical medicine's role in injury prevention and treatment, exercise for rehabilitation and health, and the application of physiological and biomechanical principles to specific sports. Types of Articles: Review Articles: Definitive and comprehensive reviews that interpret and evaluate current literature to provide rationale for and application of research findings. Leading/Current Opinion Articles: Overviews of contentious or emerging issues in the field. Original Research Articles: High-quality research articles. Enhanced Features: Additional features like slide sets, videos, and animations aimed at increasing the visibility, readership, and educational value of the journal's content. Plain Language Summaries: Summaries accompanying articles to assist readers in understanding important medical advances. Peer Review Process: All manuscripts undergo peer review by international experts to ensure quality and rigor. The journal also welcomes Letters to the Editor, which will be considered for publication.
期刊最新文献
From Tissue to System: What Constitutes an Appropriate Response to Loading? DyNamic Interactive Anticipation-Time for a Paradigmatic Shift. Professional Male Soccer Players' Perspectives of the Nutrition Culture Within an English Premier League Football Club: A Qualitative Exploration Using Bourdieu's Concepts of Habitus, Capital and Field. The Menstrual Health Manager (MHM): A Resource to Reduce Discrepancies Between Science and Practice in Sport and Exercise. There is No Supporting Evidence for a Far Transfer of General Perceptual or Cognitive Training to Sports Performance.
×
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