ReviewAmerican journal of lifestyle medicine
Integrating Mobile Fitness Trackers Into the Practice of Medicine.
Review in American journal of lifestyle medicine. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Supervised and Individualized Lifestyle Medicine Therapy of a Patient after Myocardial Infarction-Case Study.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2022Article
- The Role of Individualized Exercise Prescription in Obesity Management-Case Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Future Mobile Device Usage, Requirements, and Expectations of Physicians in German University Hospitals: Web-Based Survey.Journal of medical Internet research · 2020Article
- Provider Perspectives on Integrating Sensor-Captured Patient-Generated Data in Mental Health Care.Proceedings of the ACM on human-computer interaction · 2019Article
- Behavior Change Techniques Incorporated in Fitness Trackers: Content Analysis.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2019Article
- Health App Use Among US Mobile Phone Owners: A National Survey.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Mobile fitness trackers are increasingly used by patients as a means to become more involved in their own self-care; however, these devices measure disparate outcomes that may have equivocal relevance to true health status. It is vital for physicians to interpret both the quality and accuracy of the information that these trackers provide, and it is important to delineate which role, if any, these devices may serve in promoting quality patient care in the future. Potential benefits of mobile fitness trackers include the ability to motivate patients toward a healthier lifestyle, to develop a community of like-minded individuals seeking to improve their health, as well as to create an environment of sustainability and accountability for long-term promotion of health maintenance. However, limitations include the fact that mobile fitness trackers are not regulated by the Food and Drug Administration, that the employed metrics are not necessarily the best surrogates for true health status, and that the accuracy of measured endpoints has not yet been proven. As mobile fitness trackers both continue to rise in popularity and become increasingly sophisticated, physicians must be equipped to interpret and use this technology to better serve patients within an ever-changing, more technology-reliant health care system.
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.