ArticleAnnals of translational medicine2016
Validation study of Polar V800 accelerometer.
Article in Annals of translational medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 3 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 29 citations in OpenAlex.
- Quality Evaluation of Free-living Validation Studies for the Assessment of 24-Hour Physical Behavior in Adults via Wearables: Systematic Review.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2022Pooled it
- Accuracy and Acceptability of Wrist-Wearable Activity-Tracking Devices: Systematic Review of the Literature.Journal of medical Internet research · 2022Pooled it
- Reliability and Validity of Commercially Available Wearable Devices for Measuring Steps, Energy Expenditure, and Heart Rate: Systematic Review.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2020Pooled it
- Article
- Estimating Physical Activity and Sleep using the Combination of Movement and Heart Rate: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.International journal of exercise science · 2023Review
- Relationship of Objectively Measured Physical Activity, Sedentary Behavior and Sleep Time with Cardiovascular and Mtabolic Outcomes in Adolescents (A Pilot Study): ABCD Growth Study.Maternal and child health journal · 2022Article
- Wearable sensor device-based detection of decreased heart rate variability in Parkinson's disease.Journal of neural transmission (Vienna, Austria : 1996) · 2022Article
- Polar Vantage and Oura Physical Activity and Sleep Trackers: Validation and Comparison Study.JMIR formative research · 2022Article
- Relationship between vigorous physical activity and health care costs among adolescents: ABCD Growth Study.BMC pediatrics · 2022Article
- Reliability and Validity of the Polar V800 Sports Watch for Estimating Vertical Jump Height.Journal of sports science & medicine · 2021Article
- Measuring Physical Activity Using Triaxial Wrist Worn Polar Activity Trackers: A Systematic Review.International journal of exercise science · 2020Review
- Validity of the Polar M430 Activity Monitor in Free-Living Conditions: Validation Study.JMIR formative research · 2019Article
- Using Fitness Trackers and Smartwatches to Measure Physical Activity in Research: Analysis of Consumer Wrist-Worn Wearables.Journal of medical Internet research · 2018Article
- A 4-Week Intervention Involving Mobile-Based Daily 6-Minute Micro-Sessions of Functional High-Intensity Circuit Training Improves Strength and Quality of Life, but Not Cardio-Respiratory Fitness of Young Untrained Adults.Frontiers in physiology · 2018Article
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 at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe correct quantification of physical activity (PA) and energy expenditure (EE) in daily life is an important target for researchers and professionals. The objective of this paper is to study the validity of the Polar V800 for the quantification of PA and the estimation of EE against the ActiGraph (ActiTrainer) in healthy young adults.
methodsEighteen Caucasian active people (50% women) aged between 19-23 years wore an ActiTrainer on the right hip and a Polar V800 on the preferred wrist during 7 days. Paired samples t-tests were used to analyze differences in outcomes between devices, and Pearson's correlation coefficients to examine the correlation between outcomes. The agreement was studied using the Bland-Altman method. Also, the association between the difference and the magnitude of the measurement (heteroscedasticity) was examined. Sensitivity, specificity and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC-AUC value) were calculated to evaluate the ability of the devices to accurately define a person who fulfills the recommendation of 10,000 daily steps.
resultsThe devices significantly differed from each other on all outcomes (P<0.05), except for Polar V800's alerts vs. ActiTrainer's 1 hour sedentary bouts (P=0.595) and Polar V800's walking time vs. ActiTrainer's lifestyle time (P=0.484). Heteroscedasticity analyses were significant for all outcomes, except for Kcal and sitting time. The ROC-AUC value was fair (0.781±0.048) and the sensitivity and specificity was 98% and 58%, respectively.
conclusionsThe Polar V800 accelerometer has a comparable validity to the accelerometer in free-living conditions, regarding "1 hour sedentary bouts" and "V800's walking time vs. ActiTrainer's lifestyle time" in young adults.
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.