Jessica J Chow1, Jeanette M Thom2, Michael A Wewege3, Rachel E Ward4, Belinda J Parmenter5. 1. Department of Exercise Physiology, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia. Electronic address: chow.jjsa@gmail.com. 2. Department of Exercise Physiology, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia. Electronic address: j.thom@unsw.edu.au. 3. Department of Exercise Physiology, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia. Electronic address: m.wewege@unsw.edu.au. 4. Department of Exercise Physiology, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia. Electronic address: rachel.ward@unsw.edu.au. 5. Department of Exercise Physiology, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia. Electronic address: b.parmenter@unsw.edu.au.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Consumer-based physical activity monitors (PAMs) are becoming increasingly popular, with multiple global organisations recommending physical activity levels that equate to 10,000 steps per day for optimal health. We therefore aimed to compare the step count of five PAMs to a visual step count to identify the most accurate monitors at varying gait speeds, along with the optimal anatomical placement site. METHODS: Participants completed 3min on a treadmill for five speeds (5.0km/h, 6.5km/h, 8.0km/h, 10km/h, 12km/h). An Actigraph wGT3XBT-BT was placed on the waist and wrist, a FitBit One on the waist, and a Fitbit Flex, Fitbit Charge HR and Jawbone UP24 on both wrists. A video of participant's lower limbs was recorded for visual count. Analyses of variance (ANOVAs) were conducted to examine the effects of gait speed and device placement site on step count accuracy. RESULTS: Thirty-one participants (mean age 24.3±5.2yrs) took part. Step count error ranged from 41.3±13.8% for the wrist-worn Actigraph to only 0.04±4.3% and -0.3±4.0% for the waist-worn Fitbit One and Actigraph, respectively. Across all gait speeds, waist-worn devices achieved better accuracy than those on the wrist (p<0.001). The Jawbone was the most accurate wrist-worn consumer-based device at slower speeds (p=0.026), with the Fitbit Flex, and Fitbit Charge HR increasing in accuracy to match the Jawbone at higher speeds. CONCLUSION: The accuracy and reliability of consumer-based PAMs and the Actigraph is affected by anatomical placement site and walking speed. The Fitbit One and Actigraph on the waist were the strongest performers across all speeds. Crown
INTRODUCTION: Consumer-based physical activity monitors (PAMs) are becoming increasingly popular, with multiple global organisations recommending physical activity levels that equate to 10,000 steps per day for optimal health. We therefore aimed to compare the step count of five PAMs to a visual step count to identify the most accurate monitors at varying gait speeds, along with the optimal anatomical placement site. METHODS:Participants completed 3min on a treadmill for five speeds (5.0km/h, 6.5km/h, 8.0km/h, 10km/h, 12km/h). An Actigraph wGT3XBT-BT was placed on the waist and wrist, a FitBit One on the waist, and a Fitbit Flex, Fitbit Charge HR and Jawbone UP24 on both wrists. A video of participant's lower limbs was recorded for visual count. Analyses of variance (ANOVAs) were conducted to examine the effects of gait speed and device placement site on step count accuracy. RESULTS: Thirty-one participants (mean age 24.3±5.2yrs) took part. Step count error ranged from 41.3±13.8% for the wrist-worn Actigraph to only 0.04±4.3% and -0.3±4.0% for the waist-worn Fitbit One and Actigraph, respectively. Across all gait speeds, waist-worn devices achieved better accuracy than those on the wrist (p<0.001). The Jawbone was the most accurate wrist-worn consumer-based device at slower speeds (p=0.026), with the Fitbit Flex, and Fitbit Charge HR increasing in accuracy to match the Jawbone at higher speeds. CONCLUSION: The accuracy and reliability of consumer-based PAMs and the Actigraph is affected by anatomical placement site and walking speed. The Fitbit One and Actigraph on the waist were the strongest performers across all speeds. Crown
Authors: Meir T Marmor; Bernd Grimm; Andrew M Hanflik; Peter H Richter; Sureshan Sivananthan; Seth Robert Yarboro; Benedikt J Braun Journal: Indian J Orthop Date: 2022-04-09 Impact factor: 1.033
Authors: Ville Stenbäck; Juhani Leppäluoto; Rosanna Juustila; Laura Niiranen; Dominique Gagnon; Mikko Tulppo; Karl-Heinz Herzig Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-06-07 Impact factor: 4.964
Authors: Guillaume Chevance; Natalie M Golaszewski; Elizabeth Tipton; Eric B Hekler; Matthew Buman; Gregory J Welk; Kevin Patrick; Job G Godino Journal: JMIR Mhealth Uhealth Date: 2022-04-13 Impact factor: 4.947
Authors: André Henriksen; Martin Haugen Mikalsen; Ashenafi Zebene Woldaregay; Miroslav Muzny; Gunnar Hartvigsen; Laila Arnesdatter Hopstock; Sameline Grimsgaard Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2018-03-22 Impact factor: 5.428