Literature DB >> 29558811

Determining the Validity and Accuracy of Multiple Activity-Tracking Devices in Controlled and Free-Walking Conditions.

Daniel V Gaz1, Thomas M Rieck1, Nolan W Peterson1, Jennifer A Ferguson1, Darrell R Schroeder1,2, Heather A Dunfee1, Jill M Henderzahs-Mason1, Philip T Hagen1,3.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Clinicians and fitness professionals are increasingly recommending the use of activity trackers. This study compares commercially available activity tracking devices for step and distance accuracy in common exercise settings.
DESIGN: Cross sectional.
SETTING: Rochester, Minnesota. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-two men (n = 10) and women (n = 22) participated in the study. MEASURES: Researchers manually counted steps and measured distance for all trials, while participants wore 6 activity tracking devices that measured steps and distance. ANALYSIS: We computed the difference between the number of steps measured by the device and the actual number of steps recorded by the observers, as well as the distance displayed by the device and the actual distance measured.
RESULTS: The analyses showed that both the device and walking trials affected the accuracy of the results (steps or distance, P < .001). Hip-based devices were more accurate and consistent for measuring step count. No significant differences were found among devices or locations for the distance measured.
CONCLUSIONS: Hip-based activity tracking devices varied in accuracy but performed better than their wrist-based counterparts for step accuracy. Distance measurements for both types of devices were more consistent but lacked accuracy.

Entities:  

Keywords:  accelerometer activity tracking; pedometer

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29558811     DOI: 10.1177/0890117118763273

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Health Promot        ISSN: 0890-1171


  9 in total

1.  Objectively Measured Physical Activity in Patients with COPD: Recommendations from an International Task Force on Physical Activity.

Authors:  Heleen Demeyer; Divya Mohan; Chris Burtin; Anouk W Vaes; Matthew Heasley; Russell P Bowler; Richard Casaburi; Christopher B Cooper; Solange Corriol-Rohou; Anja Frei; Alan Hamilton; Nicholas S Hopkinson; Niklas Karlsson; William D-C Man; Marilyn L Moy; Fabio Pitta; Michael I Polkey; Milo Puhan; Stephen I Rennard; Carolyn L Rochester; Harry B Rossiter; Frank Sciurba; Sally Singh; Ruth Tal-Singer; Ioannis Vogiatzis; Henrik Watz; Rob Van Lummel; Jeremy Wyatt; Debora D Merrill; Martijn A Spruit; Judith Garcia-Aymerich; Thierry Troosters
Journal:  Chronic Obstr Pulm Dis       Date:  2021-10-28

2.  The validity of activity trackers is affected by walking speed: the criterion validity of Garmin Vivosmart® HR and StepWatch 3 for measuring steps at various walking speeds under controlled conditions.

Authors:  Frederik Rose Svarre; Mads Møller Jensen; Josephine Nielsen; Morten Villumsen
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2020-07-14       Impact factor: 2.984

3.  Review of Validity and Reliability of Garmin Activity Trackers.

Authors:  Kelly R Evenson; Camden L Spade
Journal:  J Meas Phys Behav       Date:  2020-06

Review 4.  Toward Harmonized Treadmill-Based Validation of Step-Counting Wearable Technologies: A Scoping Review.

Authors:  Christopher C Moore; Aston K McCullough; Elroy J Aguiar; Scott W Ducharme; Catrine Tudor-Locke
Journal:  J Phys Act Health       Date:  2020-07-11

5.  Recommendations for determining the validity of consumer wearable and smartphone step count: expert statement and checklist of the INTERLIVE network.

Authors:  William Johnston; Pedro B Judice; Pablo Molina García; Jan M Mühlen; Esben Lykke Skovgaard; Julie Stang; Moritz Schumann; Shulin Cheng; Wilhelm Bloch; Jan Christian Brønd; Ulf Ekelund; Anders Grøntved; Brian Caulfield; Francisco B Ortega; Luis B Sardinha
Journal:  Br J Sports Med       Date:  2020-12-24       Impact factor: 13.800

6.  Validity of Consumer Activity Monitors and an Algorithm Using Smartphone Data for Measuring Steps during Different Activity Types.

Authors:  Verena Hartung; Mustafa Sarshar; Viktoria Karle; Layal Shammas; Asarnusch Rashid; Paul Roullier; Caroline Eilers; Mathias Mäurer; Peter Flachenecker; Klaus Pfeifer; Alexander Tallner
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2020-12-12       Impact factor: 3.390

7.  Back to living well: community-based management of low back pain: a feasibility study.

Authors:  Luciana G Macedo; Julie Richardson; Michele C Battie; Mark Hancock; Matthew Kwan; Genevieve Hladysh; Linda Zhuo
Journal:  Pilot Feasibility Stud       Date:  2021-06-24

8.  Reliability and Validity of Commercially Available Wearable Devices for Measuring Steps, Energy Expenditure, and Heart Rate: Systematic Review.

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

Review 9.  Accuracy and Acceptability of Wrist-Wearable Activity-Tracking Devices: Systematic Review of the Literature.

Authors:  Federico Germini; Noella Noronha; Victoria Borg Debono; Binu Abraham Philip; Drashti Pete; Tamara Navarro; Arun Keepanasseril; Sameer Parpia; Kerstin de Wit; Alfonso Iorio
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2022-01-21       Impact factor: 5.428

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.