Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32509122›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of exercise science2020

Measuring Physical Activity Using Triaxial Wrist Worn Polar Activity Trackers: A Systematic Review.

André Henriksen, Jonas Johansson, Gunnar Hartvigsen, Sameline Grimsgaard, Laila Hopstock

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Novel Approach for Glycemic Management Incorporating Vibration Stimulation of Skeletal Muscle in Obesity.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Wearable activity trackers-advanced technology or advanced marketing?European journal of applied physiology · 2022
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. 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.

André HenriksenDepartment of Community Medicine, UiT The Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø, NORWAY.
Jonas JohanssonDepartment of Community Medicine, UiT The Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø, NORWAY.
Gunnar HartvigsenDepartment of Computer Science, UiT The Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø, NORWAY.
Sameline GrimsgaardDepartment of Community Medicine, UiT The Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø, NORWAY.
Laila HopstockDepartment of Community Medicine, UiT The Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø, NORWAY.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

energy expenditureexercisefitness trackersMotor activityphysical activity intensitysportsstepswatch

Identifiers

PMID32509122
PMCPMC7241625

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.