Fatema El-Amrawy1, Mohamed Ismail Nounou2. 1. Department of Pharmaceutics, Faculty of Pharmacy, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt. 2. Department of Pharmaceutics, Faculty of Pharmacy, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt. ; Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Appalachian College of Pharmacy, Oakwood, VA, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The new wave of wireless technologies, fitness trackers, and body sensor devices can have great impact on healthcare systems and the quality of life. However, there have not been enough studies to prove the accuracy and precision of these trackers. The objective of this study was to evaluate the accuracy, precision, and overall performance of seventeen wearable devices currently available compared with direct observation of step counts and heart rate monitoring. METHODS: Each participant in this study used three accelerometers at a time, running the three corresponding applications of each tracker on an Android or iOS device simultaneously. Each participant was instructed to walk 200, 500, and 1,000 steps. Each set was repeated 40 times. Data was recorded after each trial, and the mean step count, standard deviation, accuracy, and precision were estimated for each tracker. Heart rate was measured by all trackers (if applicable), which support heart rate monitoring, and compared to a positive control, the Onyx Vantage 9590 professional clinical pulse oximeter. RESULTS: The accuracy of the tested products ranged between 79.8% and 99.1%, while the coefficient of variation (precision) ranged between 4% and 17.5%. MisFit Shine showed the highest accuracy and precision (along with Qualcomm Toq), while Samsung Gear 2 showed the lowest accuracy, and Jawbone UP showed the lowest precision. However, Xiaomi Mi band showed the best package compared to its price. CONCLUSIONS: The accuracy and precision of the selected fitness trackers are reasonable and can indicate the average level of activity and thus average energy expenditure.
OBJECTIVES: The new wave of wireless technologies, fitness trackers, and body sensor devices can have great impact on healthcare systems and the quality of life. However, there have not been enough studies to prove the accuracy and precision of these trackers. The objective of this study was to evaluate the accuracy, precision, and overall performance of seventeen wearable devices currently available compared with direct observation of step counts and heart rate monitoring. METHODS: Each participant in this study used three accelerometers at a time, running the three corresponding applications of each tracker on an Android or iOS device simultaneously. Each participant was instructed to walk 200, 500, and 1,000 steps. Each set was repeated 40 times. Data was recorded after each trial, and the mean step count, standard deviation, accuracy, and precision were estimated for each tracker. Heart rate was measured by all trackers (if applicable), which support heart rate monitoring, and compared to a positive control, the Onyx Vantage 9590 professional clinical pulse oximeter. RESULTS: The accuracy of the tested products ranged between 79.8% and 99.1%, while the coefficient of variation (precision) ranged between 4% and 17.5%. MisFit Shine showed the highest accuracy and precision (along with Qualcomm Toq), while Samsung Gear 2 showed the lowest accuracy, and Jawbone UP showed the lowest precision. However, Xiaomi Mi band showed the best package compared to its price. CONCLUSIONS: The accuracy and precision of the selected fitness trackers are reasonable and can indicate the average level of activity and thus average energy expenditure.
Authors: Robert C Wagenaar; Inbal Sapir; Yuting Zhang; Stacey Markovic; Lucia M Vaina; Thomas D C Little Journal: Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc Date: 2011
Authors: Marie Chan; Daniel Estève; Jean-Yves Fourniols; Christophe Escriba; Eric Campo Journal: Artif Intell Med Date: 2012-11-01 Impact factor: 5.326
Authors: Dena M Bravata; Crystal Smith-Spangler; Vandana Sundaram; Allison L Gienger; Nancy Lin; Robyn Lewis; Christopher D Stave; Ingram Olkin; John R Sirard Journal: JAMA Date: 2007-11-21 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Samuel R LaMunion; Andrew L Blythe; Paul R Hibbing; Andrew S Kaplan; Brandon J Clendenin; Scott E Crouter Journal: Appl Physiol Nutr Metab Date: 2019-07-03 Impact factor: 2.665
Authors: Stephen P Wright; Tyish S Hall Brown; Scott R Collier; Kathryn Sandberg Journal: Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol Date: 2017-01-04 Impact factor: 3.619
Authors: Katharine Brieger; Gregory J M Zajac; Anita Pandit; Johanna R Foerster; Kevin W Li; Aubrey C Annis; Ellen M Schmidt; Chris P Clark; Karly McMorrow; Wei Zhou; Jingjing Yang; Alan M Kwong; Andrew P Boughton; Jinxi Wu; Chris Scheller; Tanvi Parikh; Alejandro de la Vega; David M Brazel; Maia Frieser; Gianna Rea-Sandin; Lars G Fritsche; Scott I Vrieze; Gonçalo R Abecasis Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 2019-06-13 Impact factor: 11.025
Authors: Praveen Veerabhadrappa; Matthew Duffy Moran; Mitchell D Renninger; Matthew B Rhudy; Scott B Dreisbach; Kristin M Gift Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2018-06 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Chris M Buonocore; Rosemary A Rocchio; Alfonso Roman; Christine E King; Majid Sarrafzadeh Journal: IEEE Int Conf Connect Health Appl Syst Eng Technol Date: 2017-08-17
Authors: Nga H Nguyen; Nyssa T Hadgraft; Melissa M Moore; Dori E Rosenberg; Chris Lynch; Marina M Reeves; Brigid M Lynch Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2017-05-24 Impact factor: 3.603