Literature DB >> 32449291

Accuracy of Wearable Devices for Measuring Heart Rate During Conventional and Nordic Walking.

Sora Baek1,2, Yuncheol Ha1, Hee-Won Park1,2.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Nordic walking is being used increasingly as an exercise method in many clinical disorders. To apply Nordic walking in cases of fragile or deconditioned patients, monitoring of exercise intensity such as heart rate (HR) measurement is required. The accuracy of wearable HR monitors during Nordic walking has not yet been reported.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the accuracy of an electrocardiography (ECG)-based HR monitor (Polar H7) and a photoplethysmography (PPG)-based HR monitor (Fitbit Charge 2) during conventional and Nordic walking.
DESIGN: Accuracy was assessed by comparing the HR values obtained using the wearable devices with those obtained via 12-lead ECG as a reference.
SETTING: Laboratory setting. PARTICIPANTS: Fifteen male volunteers age 23.7 ± 3.0 years.
INTERVENTIONS: None. MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES: HR was simultaneously recorded via 12-lead ECG, the Polar H7, and the Fitbit Charge 2 during conventional and Nordic walking. Agreement between the devices was assessed by calculating Lin's concordance correlation coefficient (rc ), the mean absolute difference, and the limit of agreement (LoA) from Bland-Altman plots.
RESULTS: Regarding HR values including Nordic and conventional walking, there was a better agreement between the Polar H7 and the reference (rc  = 0.96) than between the Fitbit Charge 2 and the reference (rc  = 0.84). For the Polar H7, the mean absolute difference from the reference did not differ significantly between the walking methods; for the Fitbit Charge 2, the mean absolute difference was significantly higher during Nordic walking than during conventional walking (6.60 vs. 3.68 bpm, P < .001). The Fitbit Charge 2 had a wider LoA than did the Polar H7 during both walking methods.
CONCLUSION: ECG-based wearable devices may be better than PPG-based devices for monitoring HR during Nordic walking. However, both types of devices may adequately monitor HR during conventional walking.
© 2020 American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation.

Entities:  

Year:  2020        PMID: 32449291     DOI: 10.1002/pmrj.12424

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  PM R        ISSN: 1934-1482            Impact factor:   2.298


  3 in total

Review 1.  Accuracy and Precision of Energy Expenditure, Heart Rate, and Steps Measured by Combined-Sensing Fitbits Against Reference Measures: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

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

2.  HRS White Paper on Clinical Utilization of Digital Health Technology.

Authors:  Elaine Y Wan; Hamid Ghanbari; Nazem Akoum; Zachi Itzhak Attia; Samuel J Asirvatham; Eugene H Chung; Lilas Dagher; Sana M Al-Khatib; G Stuart Mendenhall; David D McManus; Rajeev K Pathak; Rod S Passman; Nicholas S Peters; David S Schwartzman; Emma Svennberg; Khaldoun G Tarakji; Mintu P Turakhia; Anthony Trela; Hirad Yarmohammadi; Nassir F Marrouche
Journal:  Cardiovasc Digit Health J       Date:  2021-07-10

3.  Heart Rate Measurement Accuracy of Fitbit Charge 4 and Samsung Galaxy Watch Active2: Device Evaluation Study.

Authors:  Michael Nissen; Syrine Slim; Katharina Jäger; Madeleine Flaucher; Hanna Huebner; Nina Danzberger; Peter A Fasching; Matthias W Beckmann; Stefan Gradl; Bjoern M Eskofier
Journal:  JMIR Form Res       Date:  2022-03-01
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.