ReviewInternational journal of exercise science2020
Measuring Physical Activity Using Triaxial Wrist Worn Polar Activity Trackers: A Systematic Review.
Review in International journal of exercise science, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 2 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Keeping Pace with Wearables: A Living Umbrella Review of Systematic Reviews Evaluating the Accuracy of Consumer Wearable Technologies in Health Measurement.Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2024Pooled it
- Objective Measurement of Walking Activity Using Wearable Technologies in People with Parkinson Disease: A Systematic Review.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Pooled it
- Which activity tracker features matter to you? Older Black participants living with memory challenges and care partner preferences.Innovation in aging · 2026Article
- A guide to consumer-grade wearables in cardiovascular clinical care and population health for non-experts.NPJ cardiovascular health · 2025Review
- Novel Approach for Glycemic Management Incorporating Vibration Stimulation of Skeletal Muscle in Obesity.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Article
- Article
- Wearable activity trackers-advanced technology or advanced marketing?European journal of applied physiology · 2022Review
- Valuing the Diversity of Research Methods to Advance Nutrition Science.Advances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.) · 2022Article
- Polar Vantage and Oura Physical Activity and Sleep Trackers: Validation and Comparison Study.JMIR formative research · 2022Article
- The Validity of the Energy Expenditure Criteria Based on Open Source Code through two Inertial Sensors.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Sensing leg movement enhances wearable monitoring of energy expenditure.Nature communications · 2021Article
- The Use of Inertial Measurement Units for the Study of Free Living Environment Activity Assessment: A Literature Review.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Review
- Succeeding with prolonged usage of consumer-based activity trackers in clinical studies: a mixed methods approach.BMC public health · 2020Article
- Analysis Method of Real-World Digital Biomarkers for Clinical Impact in Cancer Patients.Digital biomarkersArticle
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
Collecting objective physical activity data from research participants are increasingly done using consumer-based activity trackers. Several validation studies of Polar devices are conducted to date, but no systematic review of the current level of accuracy for these devices exist. The aim of this study is therefore to investigate the accuracy of current wrist-worn Polar devices that equips a triaxial accelerometer to measure physical activity. We conducted a systematic review by searching six databases for validation studies on modern Polar activity trackers. Studies were grouped and examined by tested outcome, i.e. energy expenditure, physical activity intensity, and steps. We summarized and reported relevant metrics from each study. The initial search resulted in 157 studies, out of which fourteen studies were included in the final review. Energy expenditure was reviewed in seven studies, physical activity intensity was reviewed in four studies, and steps was reviewed in 11 studies. There is a large difference in study protocols with conflicting results between the identified studies. However, for energy expenditure there is some indication that Polar devices perform better in free-living, compared to lab-based studies. In addition, step counting seems to have less average error compared to energy expenditure and physical activity intensity. There is large heterogeneity between the identified studies, both in terms of study protocols and results, and the accuracy of Polar devices remains unclear. More studies are needed for more recently developed devices, and future studies should take care to follow guidelines for assessment of wearable sensors designed for physical activity monitoring.
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.