Literature DB >> 33800254

Inter-Device Agreement between Fitbit Flex 1 and 2 for Assessing Sedentary Behavior and Physical Activity.

Sunku Kwon1, Ryan D Burns1, Youngwon Kim2,3, Yang Bai1, Wonwoo Byun1.   

Abstract

This study examined the inter-model agreement between the Fitbit Flex (FF) and FF2 in estimating sedentary behavior (SED) and physical activity (PA) during a free-living condition. 33 healthy adults wore the FF and FF2 on non-dominant wrist for 14 consecutive days. After excluding sleep and non-wear time, data from the FF and FF2 was converted to the time spent (min/day) in SED and PA using a proprietary algorithm. Pearson's correlation was used to evaluate the association between the estimates from FF and FF2. Mean absolute percent errors (MAPE) were used to examine differences and measurement agreement in SED and PA estimates between FF and FF2. Bland-Altman (BA) plots were used to examine systematic bias between two devices. Equivalence testing was conducted to examine the equivalence between the FF and FF2. The FF2 had strong correlations with the FF in estimating SED and PA times. Compared to the FF, the FF2 yielded similar SED and PA estimates along with relatively low measurement discords and did not have significant systematic biases for SED and Moderate-to-vigorous PA estimates. Our findings suggest that researchers may choose FF2 as a measurement of SED and PA when FF is not available in the market during the longitudinal PA research.

Entities:  

Keywords:  epidemiological; inter-device agreement; physical activity; sedentary behavior

Year:  2021        PMID: 33800254      PMCID: PMC7967436          DOI: 10.3390/ijerph18052716

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health        ISSN: 1660-4601            Impact factor:   3.390


  30 in total

1.  Evaluation of quality of commercial pedometers.

Authors:  Catrine Tudor-Locke; Susan B Sisson; Sarah M Lee; Cora L Craig; Ronald C Plotnikoff; Adrian Bauman
Journal:  Can J Public Health       Date:  2006 Mar-Apr

2.  A Comparison of Accelerometer Accuracy in Older Adults.

Authors:  Lorraine J Phillips; Gregory F Petroski; Natalie E Markis
Journal:  Res Gerontol Nurs       Date:  2015-05-07       Impact factor: 1.571

3.  Measuring steps with the Fitbit activity tracker: an inter-device reliability study.

Authors:  Manon L Dontje; Martijn de Groot; Remko R Lengton; Cees P van der Schans; Wim P Krijnen
Journal:  J Med Eng Technol       Date:  2015-05-27

4.  Validity and reliability of Fitbit activity monitors compared to ActiGraph GT3X+ with female adults in a free-living environment.

Authors:  Ryan E R Reid; Jessica A Insogna; Tamara E Carver; Andrea M Comptour; Nicole A Bewski; Cristina Sciortino; Ross E Andersen
Journal:  J Sci Med Sport       Date:  2016-11-16       Impact factor: 4.319

5.  Validation of the Fitbit Zip and Fitbit Flex with pregnant women in free-living conditions.

Authors:  A St-Laurent; M M Mony; M È Mathieu; S M Ruchat
Journal:  J Med Eng Technol       Date:  2018-09-10

6.  Raw Accelerometer Data Analysis with GGIR R-package: Does Accelerometer Brand Matter?

Authors:  Alex V Rowlands; Tom Yates; Melanie Davies; Kamlesh Khunti; Charlotte L Edwardson
Journal:  Med Sci Sports Exerc       Date:  2016-10       Impact factor: 5.411

7.  VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY OF THE FITBIT FLEX™ AND ACTIGRAPH GT3X+ AT JOGGING AND RUNNING SPEEDS.

Authors:  Denise Jones; Kay Crossley; Ben Dascombe; Harvi F Hart; Joanne Kemp
Journal:  Int J Sports Phys Ther       Date:  2018-08

8.  A Community-Based Physical Activity Counselling Program for People With Knee Osteoarthritis: Feasibility and Preliminary Efficacy of the Track-OA Study.

Authors:  Linda C Li; Eric C Sayre; Hui Xie; Cam Clayton; Lynne M Feehan
Journal:  JMIR Mhealth Uhealth       Date:  2017-06-26       Impact factor: 4.773

9.  Comparison of Consumer and Research Monitors under Semistructured Settings.

Authors:  Yang Bai; Gregory J Welk; Yoon Ho Nam; Joey A Lee; Jung-Min Lee; Youngwon Kim; Nathan F Meier; Philip M Dixon
Journal:  Med Sci Sports Exerc       Date:  2016-01       Impact factor: 5.411

10.  Economic costs of diabetes in the U.S. in 2012.

Authors: 
Journal:  Diabetes Care       Date:  2013-03-06       Impact factor: 19.112

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.