Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29567635›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2018

Using Fitness Trackers and Smartwatches to Measure Physical Activity in Research: Analysis of Consumer Wrist-Worn Wearables.

André Henriksen, Martin Haugen Mikalsen, Ashenafi Zebene Woldaregay, Miroslav Muzny, Gunnar Hartvigsen, Laila Arnesdatter Hopstock, Sameline Grimsgaard

2 registry-linked trialsOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 220 papers, 13 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
220citing papers in PubMed, 13 pooled it
31.0field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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.

NCT04379921 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2020, after this paper: background citation

Improving Spine Surgical Care With Real-Time Objective Patient Tracking Using the Apple Watch

TypeinterventionalSponsorStanford UniversityRan2020 to 2024Enrolled255ConditionsSpine Disease, Spine Degeneration, Spinal Stenosis, SurgeryArmsApple Watch and App
NCT06525701 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2024, after this paper: background citation

Surgeon Core-strengthening Program as a Modifier for Exertion Associated With Vaginal Surgery: the SCORE Randomized Controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorLoyola UniversityRan2024 to 2025Enrolled18ConditionsMusculoskeletal Pain, Musculoskeletal InjuryArmsExecise Group, Control Group
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

220 citing papers in PubMed, 13 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 543 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Reliability and Concurrent Validity of Global Physical Activity Questionnaire (GPAQ): A Systematic Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2019
    Pooled it
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Effectiveness of Minimal Contact Interventions: An RCT.American journal of preventive medicine · 2021
    Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial

160 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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

André HenriksenDepartment of Community Medicine, University of Tromsø - The Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø, Norway.ORCID 0000-0002-0918-7444
Martin Haugen MikalsenDepartment of Computer Science, University of Tromsø - The Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø, Norway.ORCID 0000-0002-5992-2996
Ashenafi Zebene WoldaregayDepartment of Computer Science, University of Tromsø - The Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø, Norway.ORCID 0000-0002-9464-3407
Miroslav MuznyNorwegian Centre for E-health Research, University Hospital of North Norway, Tromsø, Norway.ORCID 0000-0002-7191-8834
Gunnar HartvigsenDepartment of Computer Science, University of Tromsø - The Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø, Norway.ORCID 0000-0001-8771-9867
Laila Arnesdatter HopstockDepartment of Health and Care Sciences, University of Tromsø - The Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø, Norway.ORCID 0000-0003-0072-7421
Sameline GrimsgaardDepartment of Community Medicine, University of Tromsø - The Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø, Norway.ORCID 0000-0002-0601-0344
UiT The Arctic University of Norway · NOUniversity Hospital of North Norway · NO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNew fitness trackers and smartwatches are released to the consumer market every year. These devices are equipped with different sensors, algorithms, and accompanying mobile apps. With recent advances in mobile sensor technology, privately collected physical activity data can be used as an addition to existing methods for health data collection in research. Furthermore, data collected from these devices have possible applications in patient diagnostics and treatment. With an increasing number of diverse brands, there is a need for an overview of device sensor support, as well as device applicability in research projects.

objectiveThe objective of this study was to examine the availability of wrist-worn fitness wearables and analyze availability of relevant fitness sensors from 2011 to 2017. Furthermore, the study was designed to assess brand usage in research projects, compare common brands in terms of developer access to collected health data, and features to consider when deciding which brand to use in future research.

methodsWe searched for devices and brand names in six wearable device databases. For each brand, we identified additional devices on official brand websites. The search was limited to wrist-worn fitness wearables with accelerometers, for which we mapped brand, release year, and supported sensors relevant for fitness tracking. In addition, we conducted a Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE) and ClinicalTrials search to determine brand usage in research projects. Finally, we investigated developer accessibility to the health data collected by identified brands.

resultsWe identified 423 unique devices from 132 different brands. Forty-seven percent of brands released only one device. Introduction of new brands peaked in 2014, and the highest number of new devices was introduced in 2015. Sensor support increased every year, and in addition to the accelerometer, a photoplethysmograph, for estimating heart rate, was the most common sensor. Out of the brands currently available, the five most often used in research projects are Fitbit, Garmin, Misfit, Apple, and Polar. Fitbit is used in twice as many validation studies as any other brands and is registered in ClinicalTrials studies 10 times as often as other brands.

conclusionsThe wearable landscape is in constant change. New devices and brands are released every year, promising improved measurements and user experience. At the same time, other brands disappear from the consumer market for various reasons. Advances in device quality offer new opportunities for research. However, only a few well-established brands are frequently used in research projects, and even less are thoroughly validated.

Indexed as

ExerciseFemaleFitness TrackersHeart RateHumansMaleMobile ApplicationsPhotoplethysmographyWearable Electronic DevicesWristfitness trackersheart ratemotor activityphotoplethysmographyphysical activity

Identifiers

PMID29567635
PMCPMC5887043
OpenAlexW2792479193

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.