Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29996797›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2018

Validating Fitbit Zip for monitoring physical activity of children in school: a cross-sectional study.

Kerli Mooses, Marek Oja, Sulev Reisberg, Jaak Vilo, Merike Kull

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Exploring Families' Acceptance of Wearable Activity Trackers: A Mixed-Methods Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Segmented School Physical Activity and Weight Status in Children: Application of Compositional Data Analysis.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Article
  15. Observational
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
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

5 authors.

Kerli MoosesInstitute of Sport Sciences and Physiotherapy, University of Tartu, Jakobi 5, Tartu, Estonia. Kerli.Mooses@ut.ee.ORCID 0000-0002-3651-6063
Marek OjaSoftware Technology and Applications Competence Centre, Ülikooli 2, Tartu, Estonia.
Sulev ReisbergSoftware Technology and Applications Competence Centre, Ülikooli 2, Tartu, Estonia.
Jaak ViloSoftware Technology and Applications Competence Centre, Ülikooli 2, Tartu, Estonia.
Merike KullInstitute of Sport Sciences and Physiotherapy, University of Tartu, Jakobi 5, Tartu, Estonia.

Funding

Eesti Teadusagentuur IUT 20-58Eesti Teadusagentuur IUT34-4
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundModern activity trackers, including the Fitbit Zip, enable the measurement of both the step count as well as physical activity (PA) intensities. However, there is a need for field-based validation studies in a variety of populations before using trackers for research. Therefore, the purpose of the current study was to investigate the validity of Fitbit Zip step count, moderate to vigorous physical activity (MVPA) and sedentary minutes, in different school segments in 3rd grade students.

methodsThird grade students (N = 147, aged 9-10 years) wore a Fitbit Zip and an ActiGraph GT3x-BT accelerometer simultaneously on a belt for five days during school hours. The number of steps, minutes of MVPA and sedentary time during class time, physical education lessons and recess were extracted from both devices using time filters, based on the information from school time tables obtained from class teachers. The validity of the Fitbit Zip in different school segments was assessed using Bland-Altman analysis and Spearman's correlation.

resultsThere was a strong correlation in the number of steps in all in-school segments between the two devices (r = 0.85-0.96, P < 0.001). The Fitbit Zip overestimated the number of steps in all segments, with the greatest overestimation being present in physical education lessons (345 steps). As for PA intensities, the agreement between the two devices in physical education and recess was moderate for MVPA minutes (r = 0.56 and r = 0.72, P < 0.001, respectively) and strong for sedentary time (r = 0.85 and r = 0.87, P < 0.001, respectively). During class time, the correlation was weak for MVPA minutes (r = 0.24, P < 0.001) and moderate for sedentary time (r = 0.57, P < 0.001). For total in-school time, the correlation between the two devices was strong for steps (r = 0.98, P < 0.001), MVPA (r = 0.80, P < 0.001) and sedentary time (r = 0.94, P < 0.001).

conclusionIn general, the Fitbit Zip can be considered a relatively accurate device for measuring the number of steps, MVPA and sedentary time in students in a school-setting. However, in segments where sedentary time dominates (e.g. academic classes), a research-grade accelerometer should be preferred.

Indexed as

ExerciseActigraphyChildCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleFitness TrackersHumansMaleMonitoring, AmbulatoryPhysical Education and TrainingReproducibility of ResultsStudentsAccelerometerActivity monitorFitbit zipValidity

Identifiers

PMID29996797
PMCPMC6042315

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.