Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25539733›Full record

ArticleBMC research notes2014

The validation of Fibit Zip™ physical activity monitor as a measure of free-living physical activity.

Mark A Tully, Cairmeal McBride, Leonnie Heron, Ruth F Hunter

Registry-linked trialAbstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC research notes, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03906942 (Using Team Science to Promote Health-Enhancing Physical Activity in Adults With Obesity in a Community Setting), which is not on this map. Cited by 84 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
84citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT03906942 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2019, after this paper: background citation

Using Team Science to Promote Health-Enhancing Physical Activity in Adults With Obesity in a Community Setting: A Feasibility Study

TypeinterventionalSponsorMichigan State UniversityRan2019 to 2020Enrolled33ConditionsHealth PromotionArmsFun For Wellness (FFW)
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

84 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Systematic review of the validity and reliability of consumer-wearable activity trackers.The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2015
    Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

24 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Mark A TullyCentre for Public Health, School of Medicine, Dentistry and Biomedical Sciences, Queens' University Belfast, Belfast, UK. m.tully@qub.ac.uk.
Cairmeal McBride
Leonnie Heron
Ruth F Hunter

Funding

British Heart FoundationCancer Research UKChief Scientist OfficeDepartment of HealthMedical Research Council MR/K023241/1Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe new generation of activity monitors allow users to upload their data to the internet and review progress. The aim of this study is to validate the Fitbit Zip as a measure of free-living physical activity.

findingsParticipants wore a Fitbit Zip, ActiGraph GT3X accelerometer and a Yamax CW700 pedometer for seven days. Participants were asked their opinion on the utility of the Fitbit Zip. Validity was assessed by comparing the output using Spearman's rank correlation coefficients, Wilcoxon signed rank tests and Bland-Altman plots. 59.5% (25/47) of the cohort were female. There was a high correlation in steps/day between the Fitbit Zip and the two reference devices (r = 0.91, p < 0.001). No statistically significant difference between the Fitbit and Yamax steps/day was observed (Median (IQR) 7477 (3597) vs 6774 (3851); p = 0.11). The Fitbit measured significantly more steps/day than the Actigraph (7477 (3597) vs 6774 (3851); p < 0.001). Bland-Altman plots revealed no systematic differences between the devices.

conclusionsGiven the high level of correlation and no apparent systematic biases in the Bland Altman plots, the use of Fitbit Zip as a measure of physical activity. However the Fitbit Zip recorded a significantly higher number of steps per day than the Actigraph.

Indexed as

Physical FitnessAccelerometryActigraphyAdultCohort StudiesFemaleHumansIndependent LivingMaleMonitoring, AmbulatoryReproducibility of ResultsTelemetryWalkingYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID25539733
PMCPMC4307145

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.