Valentin Prieto-Centurion1, Nina Bracken2, Lourdes Norwick2, Farhan Zaidi1, Amelia A Mutso3, Victoria Morken4, David B Coultas5, Cynthia S Rand6, David X Marquez5, Jerry A Krishnan7. 1. Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care, Sleep & Allergy, University of Illinois at Chicago. 2. Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care, Sleep & Allergy, University of Illinois at Chicago ; Population Health Sciences Program, University of Illinois Hospital & Health Sciences System, Chicago. 3. Population Health Sciences Program, University of Illinois Hospital & Health Sciences System, Chicago. 4. Population Health Sciences Program, University of Illinois Hospital & Health Sciences System, Chicago ; Jesse Brown VA Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois. 5. Portland VA Medical Center, Portland, Oregon. 6. Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland. 7. Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care, Sleep & Allergy, University of Illinois at Chicago ; Population Health Sciences Program, University of Illinois Hospital & Health Sciences System, Chicago ; Jesse Brown VA Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Commercially available pedometers have been used as tools to measure endpoints in studies evaluating physical activity promotion programs. However, their accuracy in patients recovering from COPD exacerbations is unknown. The objectives of this study were to 1) assess the relative accuracy of different commercially available pedometers in healthy volunteers and 2) evaluate the accuracy of the top-performing commercially available pedometer in patients recovering from COPD exacerbations following hospital discharge. METHODS: Twelve healthy volunteers wore 2 pedometers, 2 smartphones with pedometer apps and an accelerometer for 15 minutes of indoor activity. The top-performing device in healthy volunteers was evaluated in 4 patients recovering from COPD exacerbations following hospital discharge during 6 minutes of walking performed at home. Bland-Altman plots were employed to evaluate accuracy of each device compared with direct observation (the reference standard). RESULTS: In healthy volunteers, the mean percent error compared to direct observation of the various devices ranged from -49% to +1%. The mean percent error [95% confidence interval (CI)] of the top-performing device in healthy volunteers, the Fitbit Zip®, was +1% [-33 to +35%], significantly lower than that of the accelerometer (-13% [-56 to +29%], p=0.01). The mean percent error [95% CI] for the Fitbit Zip® in patients recovering from COPD exacerbations was -3% [-7 to +12%]. CONCLUSIONS: The accuracy of commercially available pedometers in healthy volunteers is highly variable. The top-performing pedometer in our study, the Fitbit Zip,® accurately measures step counts in both healthy volunteers and patients recovering from COPD exacerbations.
BACKGROUND: Commercially available pedometers have been used as tools to measure endpoints in studies evaluating physical activity promotion programs. However, their accuracy in patients recovering from COPD exacerbations is unknown. The objectives of this study were to 1) assess the relative accuracy of different commercially available pedometers in healthy volunteers and 2) evaluate the accuracy of the top-performing commercially available pedometer in patients recovering from COPD exacerbations following hospital discharge. METHODS: Twelve healthy volunteers wore 2 pedometers, 2 smartphones with pedometer apps and an accelerometer for 15 minutes of indoor activity. The top-performing device in healthy volunteers was evaluated in 4 patients recovering from COPD exacerbations following hospital discharge during 6 minutes of walking performed at home. Bland-Altman plots were employed to evaluate accuracy of each device compared with direct observation (the reference standard). RESULTS: In healthy volunteers, the mean percent error compared to direct observation of the various devices ranged from -49% to +1%. The mean percent error [95% confidence interval (CI)] of the top-performing device in healthy volunteers, the Fitbit Zip®, was +1% [-33 to +35%], significantly lower than that of the accelerometer (-13% [-56 to +29%], p=0.01). The mean percent error [95% CI] for the Fitbit Zip® in patients recovering from COPD exacerbations was -3% [-7 to +12%]. CONCLUSIONS: The accuracy of commercially available pedometers in healthy volunteers is highly variable. The top-performing pedometer in our study, the Fitbit Zip,® accurately measures step counts in both healthy volunteers and patients recovering from COPD exacerbations.
Authors: Judit Takacs; Courtney L Pollock; Jerrad R Guenther; Mohammadreza Bahar; Christopher Napier; Michael A Hunt Journal: J Sci Med Sport Date: 2013-10-31 Impact factor: 4.319
Authors: Neil J Greening; Theresa C Harvey-Dunstan; Emma J Chaplin; Emma E Vincent; Mike D Morgan; Sally J Singh; Michael C Steiner Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2015-10-01 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Ayedh D Alahmari; Anant R C Patel; Beverly S Kowlessar; Alex J Mackay; Richa Singh; Jadwiga A Wedzicha; Gavin C Donaldson Journal: BMC Pulm Med Date: 2014-06-02 Impact factor: 3.317
Authors: Elena Gimeno-Santos; Anja Frei; Claudia Steurer-Stey; Jordi de Batlle; Roberto A Rabinovich; Yogini Raste; Nicholas S Hopkinson; Michael I Polkey; Hans van Remoortel; Thierry Troosters; Karoly Kulich; Niklas Karlsson; Milo A Puhan; Judith Garcia-Aymerich Journal: Thorax Date: 2014-02-20 Impact factor: 9.139
Authors: Bishoy S Eskander; Megan Barbar; Richard B Evans; Masataka Enomoto; B Duncan X Lascelles; Michael G Conzemius Journal: Can J Vet Res Date: 2020-01 Impact factor: 1.310
Authors: Anabela G Silva; Patrícia Simões; Alexandra Queirós; Mário Rodrigues; Nelson P Rocha Journal: J Med Syst Date: 2020-01-08 Impact factor: 4.460
Authors: Daniel Fuller; Emily Colwell; Jonathan Low; Kassia Orychock; Melissa Ann Tobin; Bo Simango; Richard Buote; Desiree Van Heerden; Hui Luan; Kimberley Cullen; Logan Slade; Nathan G A Taylor Journal: JMIR Mhealth Uhealth Date: 2020-09-08 Impact factor: 4.773