ArticleThe journals of gerontology. Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences2017
Validation of Consumer-Based Hip and Wrist Activity Monitors in Older Adults With Varied Ambulatory Abilities.
Article in The journals of gerontology. Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 51 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
51 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Recommendations for determining the validity of consumer wearable and smartphone step count: expert statement and checklist of the INTERLIVE network.British journal of sports medicine · 2021Guideline
- Reliability and Validity of Commercially Available Wearable Devices for Measuring Steps, Energy Expenditure, and Heart Rate: Systematic Review.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2020Pooled it
- Better Together? A Pilot Study of Romantic Partner Influence on Exercise Adherence and Cardiometabolic Risk in African-American Couples.Journal of racial and ethnic health disparities · 2021Trial
- Improving mobility and participation of older people with vertigo, dizziness and balance disorders in primary care using a care pathway: feasibility study and process evaluation.BMC family practice · 2021Trial
- Acceptability and Effects of Commercially Available Activity Trackers for Chronic Pain Management Among Older African American Adults.Pain medicine (Malden, Mass.) · 2020Trial
- Accuracy of consumer-level and research-grade activity trackers in ambulatory settings in older adults.PloS one · 2019Trial
- Criterion Validity of a Consumer Wearable for Step Counting and Activity Intensity Classification in Adults With Lung Cancer: Laboratory-Based Validation Study.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- Multicomponent telerehabilitation programme for older veterans with multimorbidity: a programme evaluation.BMJ military health · 2025Article
- Accelerometers can correctly count orthopaedic patients' early post-operative steps while using walking aids.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2025Article
- Accuracy and reliability of accelerometer-based pedometers in step counts during walking, running, and stair climbing in different locations of attachment.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Associations between performance-based and patient-reported physical functioning and real-world mobile sensor metrics in older cancer survivors: A pilot study.Journal of geriatric oncology · 2024Article
- Temporal Interactions between Maintenance of Cerebral Cortex Thickness and Physical Activity from an Individual Person Micro-Longitudinal Perspective and Implications for Precision Medicine.Journal of personalized medicine · 2024Article
- The Role of Wearable Sensors to Monitor Physical Activity and Sleep Patterns in Older Adult Inpatients: A Structured Review.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- An Algorithm to Classify Real-World Ambulatory Status From a Wearable Device Using Multimodal and Demographically Diverse Data: Validation Study.JMIR biomedical engineering · 2023Article
- Non-equivalent, but still valid: Establishing the construct validity of a consumer fitness tracker in persons with multiple sclerosis.PLOS digital health · 2023Article
- Validity of trunk acceleration measurement with a chest-worn monitor for assessment of physical activity intensity.BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation · 2022Article
- Development and internal validation of a prediction model to identify older adults at risk of low physical activity levels during hospitalisation: a prospective cohort study.BMC geriatrics · 2022Article
- The Role of Remote Monitoring in Evaluating Fatigue in Multiple Sclerosis: A Review.Frontiers in neurology · 2022Review
- Influence of upper limb activity on the step count and accuracy of sleep time of a wristband-type physical activity tracker.PloS one · 2022Article
- Mid-Life Physical Activity and Late-Life Cognitive Performance among American Indians.Neuroepidemiology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe accuracy of step detection in consumer-based wearable activity monitors in older adults with varied ambulatory abilities is not known.
methodsWe assessed the validity of two hip-worn (Fitbit One and Omron HJ-112) and two wrist-worn (Fitbit Flex and Jawbone UP) activity monitors in 99 older adults of varying ambulatory abilities and also included the validity results from the ankle-worn StepWatch as a comparison device. Nonimpaired, impaired (Short Physical Performance Battery Score < 9), cane-using, or walker-using older adults (62 and older) ambulated at a self-selected pace for 100 m wearing all activity monitors simultaneously. The criterion measure was directly observed steps. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC), mean percent error and mean absolute percent error, equivalency, and Bland-Altman plots were used to assess accuracy.
resultsNonimpaired adults steps were underestimated by 4.4% for StepWatch (ICC = 0.87), 2.6% for Fitbit One (ICC = 0.80), 4.5% for Omron HJ-112 (ICC = 0.72), 26.9% for Fitbit Flex (ICC = 0.15), and 2.9% for Jawbone UP (ICC = 0.55). Impaired adults steps were underestimated by 3.5% for StepWatch (ICC = 0.91), 1.7% for Fitbit One (ICC = 0.96), 3.2% for Omron HJ-112 (ICC = 0.89), 16.3% for Fitbit Flex (ICC = 0.25), and 8.4% for Jawbone UP (ICC = 0.50). Cane-user and walker-user steps were underestimated by StepWatch by 1.8% (ICC = 0.98) and 1.3% (ICC = 0.99), respectively, where all other monitors underestimated steps by >11.5% (ICCs < 0.05).
conclusionsStepWatch, Omron HJ-112, Fitbit One, and Jawbone UP appeared accurate at measuring steps in older adults with nonimpaired and impaired ambulation during a self-paced walking test. StepWatch also appeared accurate at measuring steps in cane-users.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.