Literature DB >> 31719715

Inter-Instrument Reliability and Agreement of Fitbit Charge Measurements of Heart Rate and Activity at Rest, during the Modified Canadian Aerobic Fitness Test, and in Recovery.

Goris Nazari1, Joy C MacDermid1,2, Kathryn E Sinden3, Julie Richardson4, Ada Tang4.   

Abstract

Purpose: We determined the inter-instrument reliability and agreement parameters of the Fitbit Charge Heart Rate (Charge HR) device during three phases: rest, modified Canadian Aerobic Fitness Test (mCAFT), and recovery. Method: We recruited 60 participants for this cross-sectional measurement study using convenience and snowball sampling approaches. The performance of the Charge HR was assessed throughout the rest, mCAFT, and recovery phases. To establish inter-instrument reliability, the Charge HR variables - heart rate, steps taken, and energy expenditures - were compared with those for two other devices: the Zephyr BioHarness (ZB) for heart rate and the Fitbit One for steps taken and energy expenditure. Measurements were recorded every 30 seconds.
Results: At rest, the inter-instrument intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) (standard error of measurement [SEM]) for the Charge HR versus the ZB was ≥ 0.97 (range, min-max, 1.02-1.32). During the mCAFT and in recovery, the ICCs (SEMs) for the Charge HR and the ZB were ≥ 0.89 (range, min-max, 1.30-3.98) and ≥ 0.68 (range, min-max, 3.58-8.35), respectively. During the mCAFT only, the number of steps taken and the energy expenditure recorded by the Charge HR and the Fitbit One displayed ICCs (SEMs) of 0.97 (83.00) and 0.77 (14.70), respectively. The average agreement differences in heart rate in this pair-wise device comparison indicated mean differences of -0.20, 4.00, and 1.00 beats per minute at rest, during the mCAFT, and in recovery, respectively. Conclusions: The Charge HR heart rate variable demonstrated excellent inter-instrument reliability compared with the ZB and provided good levels of agreement. The steps taken and energy expenditure variables displayed excellent reliability measures between Charge HR and Fitbit One. Our findings may be used to capture field-based wireless measures of heart rate in various phases and provide information about possibly using the Charge HR and ZB devices interchangeably. © Canadian Physiotherapy Association.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Fitbit Charge; cardiorespiratory fitness; fitness trackers; heart rate determination; reproducibility of results

Year:  2019        PMID: 31719715      PMCID: PMC6830424          DOI: 10.3138/ptc.2018-25

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Physiother Can        ISSN: 0300-0508            Impact factor:   1.037


  11 in total

Review 1.  A checklist for judging preference-based measures of health related quality of life: learning from psychometrics.

Authors:  J Brazier; M Deverill
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  1999-02       Impact factor: 3.046

2.  Heart rate monitoring during training and competition in cyclists.

Authors:  A Jeukendrup; A VanDiemen
Journal:  J Sports Sci       Date:  1998-01       Impact factor: 3.337

3.  Concurrent validity of the Armour39 heart rate monitor strap.

Authors:  Shawn D Flanagan; Brett A Comstock; William H Dupont; Adam J Sterczala; Dave P Looney; Dylan H Dombrowski; Danielle M McDermott; Alexander Bryce; Jesse Maladouangdock; Courtenay Dunn-Lewis; Hui-Ying Luk; Tunde K Szivak; David R Hooper; William J Kraemer
Journal:  J Strength Cond Res       Date:  2014-03       Impact factor: 3.775

4.  Validation of the Fitbit One activity monitor device during treadmill walking.

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

5.  Correlation, agreement, and Bland-Altman analysis: statistical analysis of method comparison studies.

Authors:  Catey Bunce
Journal:  Am J Ophthalmol       Date:  2009-07       Impact factor: 5.258

6.  Accuracy of Wrist-Worn Heart Rate Monitors.

Authors:  Robert Wang; Gordon Blackburn; Milind Desai; Dermot Phelan; Lauren Gillinov; Penny Houghtaling; Marc Gillinov
Journal:  JAMA Cardiol       Date:  2017-01-01       Impact factor: 14.676

7.  Validation of heart rate derived from a physiological status monitor-embedded compression shirt against criterion ECG.

Authors:  B A Dolezal; D M Boland; J Carney; M Abrazado; D L Smith; C B Cooper
Journal:  J Occup Environ Hyg       Date:  2014       Impact factor: 2.155

8.  Validity of consumer-based physical activity monitors.

Authors:  Jung-Min Lee; Youngwon Kim; Gregory J Welk
Journal:  Med Sci Sports Exerc       Date:  2014-09       Impact factor: 5.411

9.  Fitbit®: An accurate and reliable device for wireless physical activity tracking.

Authors:  Keith M Diaz; David J Krupka; Melinda J Chang; James Peacock; Yao Ma; Jeff Goldsmith; Joseph E Schwartz; Karina W Davidson
Journal:  Int J Cardiol       Date:  2015-03-04       Impact factor: 4.164

10.  Measurement accuracy of heart rate and respiratory rate during graded exercise and sustained exercise in the heat using the Zephyr BioHarness.

Authors:  J-H Kim; R Roberge; J B Powell; A B Shafer; W Jon Williams
Journal:  Int J Sports Med       Date:  2012-11-22       Impact factor: 3.118

View more
  3 in total

1.  A Theory-Informed, Personalized mHealth Intervention for Adolescents (Mobile App for Physical Activity): Development and Pilot Study.

Authors:  Alex Domin; Arif Uslu; André Schulz; Yacine Ouzzahra; Claus Vögele
Journal:  JMIR Form Res       Date:  2022-06-10

2.  Feasibility of Fitness Tracker Usage to Assess Activity Level and Toxicities in Patients With Colorectal Cancer.

Authors:  William H Ward; Caitlin R Meeker; Elizabeth Handorf; Maureen V Hill; Margret Einarson; R Katherine Alpaugh; Thomas L Holden; Igor Astsaturov; Crystal S Denlinger; Michael J Hall; Sanjay S Reddy; Elin R Sigurdson; Efrat Dotan; Matthew Zibelman; Joshua E Meyer; Jeffrey M Farma; Namrata Vijayvergia
Journal:  JCO Clin Cancer Inform       Date:  2021-01

3.  Agreement between original and Rasch-approved neck disability index.

Authors:  Ze Lu; Joy C MacDermid; Goris Nazari
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2020-07-03       Impact factor: 4.615

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.