ArticleJMIR mHealth and uHealth2018
The Accuracy of Smart Devices for Measuring Physical Activity in Daily Life: Validation Study.
Article in JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 papers, 4 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
43 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Criterion validity of ActiGraph monitoring devices for step counting and distance measurement in adults and older adults: a systematic review.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2022Pooled it
- 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
- Utilization of wearable technology to assess gait and mobility post-stroke: a systematic review.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2021Pooled 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
- Association between Metabolic Syndrome Status and Daily Physical Activity Measured by a Wearable Device in Japanese Office Workers.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Trial
- Investigating When, Which, and Why Users Stop Using a Digital Health Intervention to Promote an Active Lifestyle: Secondary Analysis With A Focus on Health Action Process Approach-Based Psychological Determinants.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2022Trial
- Which behaviour change techniques are effective to promote physical activity and reduce sedentary behaviour in adults: a factorial randomized trial of an e- and m-health intervention.The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2020Trial
- Multimodal (Bio)Markers and Risk of Obesity - A Comprehensive Scoping Review.Advances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.) · 2026Article
- Validity and Wear Compliance of Wrist-Worn Consumer Activity Trackers Among Japanese School-Aged Children Under Free-Living Conditions.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Article
- Frailty and Physical Activity: A Compositional Isotemporal Substitution Analysis from the All of Us Research Program.Journal of frailty, sarcopenia and falls · 2025Article
- Minimal Clinically Important Difference of Average Daily Steps Measured Through a Consumer Smartwatch in People With Mild-to-Moderate Parkinson Disease: Cross-Sectional Study.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2025Article
- Identifying meaningful aspects of health and concepts of interest for assessment in systemic lupus erythematosus: implications for digital clinical measure development.Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 2024Article
- Accuracy of the Huawei GT2 Smartwatch for Measuring Physical Activity and Sleep Among Adults During Daily Life: Instrument Validation Study.JMIR formative research · 2024Article
- A Mindfulness-Based Lifestyle Intervention for Dementia Risk Reduction: Protocol for the My Healthy Brain Feasibility Randomized Controlled Trial.JMIR research protocols · 2024Article
- Adherence Patterns and Health Outcomes in Spanish Young Women Participating in a Virtual-Guided HIIT Program: Insights from the Randomized Controlled WISE Trial.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Article
- Apple Watch 6 vs. Galaxy Watch 4: A Validity Study of Step-Count Estimation in Daily Activities.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Development and validation of a smartwatch algorithm for differentiating physical activity intensity in health monitoring.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Physical activity and mental health in school-aged children: a prospective two-wave study during the easing of the COVID-19 restrictions.Child and adolescent psychiatry and mental health · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWearables for monitoring physical activity (PA) are increasingly popular. These devices are not only used by consumers to monitor their own levels of PA but also by researchers to track the behavior of large samples. Consequently, it is important to explore how accurately PA can be tracked via these devices.
objectivesThe aim of this study was, therefore, to investigate convergent validity of 3 Android Wear smartwatches-Polar M600 (Polar Electro Oy, Kempele, Finland), Huawei Watch (Huawei Technologies Co, Ltd, Shenzhen, Guangdong, China), Asus Zenwatch3 (AsusTek Computer Inc, Taipei, Taiwan)-and Fitbit Charge with an ActiGraph accelerometer for measuring steps and moderate to vigorous physical activity (MVPA) on both a day level and 15-min level.
methodsA free-living protocol was used in which 36 adults engaged in usual daily activities over 2 days while wearing 2 different wearables on the nondominant wrist and an ActiGraph GT3X+ accelerometer on the hip. Validity was evaluated on both levels by comparing each wearable with the ActiGraph GT3X+ accelerometer using correlations and Bland-Altman plots in IBM SPSS 24.0.
resultsOn a day level, all devices showed strong correlations (Spearman r=.757-.892) and good agreement (interclass correlation coefficient, ICC=.695-.885) for measuring steps, whereas moderate correlations (Spearman r=.557-.577) and low agreement (ICC=.377-.660) for measuring MVPA. Bland-Altman revealed a systematic overestimation of the wearables for measuring steps but a variation between over- and undercounting of MVPA. On a 15-min level, all devices showed strong correlations (Spearman r=.752-.917) and good agreement (ICC=.792-.887) for measuring steps, whereas weak correlations (Spearman r=.116-.208) and low agreement (ICC=.461-.577) for measuring MVPA. Bland-Altman revealed a systematic overestimation of the wearables for steps but under- or overestimation for MVPA depending on the device.
conclusionsIn sum, all 4 consumer-level devices can be considered accurate step counters in free-living conditions. This study, however, provides evidence of systematic bias for all devices in measurement of MVPA. The results on a 15-min level also indicate that these devices are not sufficiently accurate to provide correct real-time feedback.
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.