ArticleJMIR mHealth and uHealth2019
Usefulness of Modern Activity Trackers for Monitoring Exercise Behavior in Chronic Cardiac Patients: Validation Study.
Article in JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Noninvasive Multiparameter Monitoring for the Detection of Decompensated Heart Failure: Exploratory Study.JMIR formative research · 2025Article
- Article
- Wearable Technology in Cardiology: Advancements, Applications, and Future Prospects.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Review
- Smartwatches in the assessment of heart failure patients in epidemiology and pathophysiology studies: A scoping review.ESC heart failure · 2025Article
- A scoping review on advancements in noninvasive wearable technology for heart failure management.NPJ digital medicine · 2024Article
- Measurement properties of device-based physical activity instruments in ambulatory adults with physical disabilities and/or chronic diseases: a scoping review.BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation · 2023Article
- Wearable Devices in Cardiovascular Medicine.Circulation research · 2023Review
- Digitally enabled cardiac rehabilitation following coronary revascularization: results from a single centre feasibility study.European heart journal supplements : journal of the European Society of Cardiology · 2022Article
- Smart wearable devices in cardiovascular care: where we are and how to move forward.Nature reviews. Cardiology · 2021Review
- Article
- Wrist-Worn Activity Trackers in Laboratory and Free-Living Settings for Patients With Chronic Pain: Criterion Validity Study.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2021Article
- Using Smart Bracelets to Assess Heart Rate Among Students During Physical Education Lessons: Feasibility, Reliability, and Validity Study.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2020Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundImproving physical activity (PA) is a core component of secondary prevention and cardiac (tele)rehabilitation. Commercially available activity trackers are frequently used to monitor and promote PA in cardiac patients. However, studies on the validity of these devices in cardiac patients are scarce. As cardiac patients are being advised and treated based on PA parameters measured by these devices, it is highly important to evaluate the accuracy of these parameters in this specific population.
objectiveThe aim of this study was to determine the accuracy and responsiveness of 2 wrist-worn activity trackers, Fitbit Charge 2 (FC2) and Mio Slice (MS), for the assessment of energy expenditure (EE) in cardiac patients.
methodsEE assessed by the activity trackers was compared with indirect calorimetry (Oxycon Mobile [OM]) during a laboratory activity protocol. Two groups were assessed: patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD) with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).
resultsA total of 38 patients were included: 19 with CAD and 19 with HFrEF (LVEF 31.8%, SD 7.6%). The CAD group showed no significant difference in total EE between FC2 and OM (47.5 kcal, SD 112 kcal; P=.09), in contrast to a significant difference between MS and OM (88 kcal, SD 108 kcal; P=.003). The HFrEF group showed significant differences in EE between FC2 and OM (38 kcal, SD 57 kcal; P=.01), as well as between MS and OM (106 kcal, SD 167 kcal; P=.02). Agreement of the activity trackers was low in both groups (CAD: intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] FC2=0.10, ICC MS=0.12; HFrEF: ICC FC2=0.42, ICC MS=0.11). The responsiveness of FC2 was poor, whereas MS was able to detect changes in cycling loads only.
conclusionsBoth activity trackers demonstrated low accuracy in estimating EE in cardiac patients and poor performance to detect within-patient changes in the low-to-moderate exercise intensity domain. Although the use of activity trackers in cardiac patients is promising and could enhance daily exercise behavior, these findings highlight the need for population-specific devices and algorithms.
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.