ArticleJournal of aging and physical activity2021
Comparing Methods to Identify Wear-Time Intervals for Physical Activity With the Fitbit Charge 2.
Article in Journal of aging and physical activity, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Using an Adult-Designed Wearable for Pediatric Monitoring: Practical Tutorial and Application in School-Aged Children With Obesity.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Assessing Wearable mHealth Adherence in Underserved Adolescents and its Associations With Physical Activity, Sports, and Safety Perceptions: Prospective Cohort Study.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2026Observational
- Evening preference with evening-type rest-activity rhythm: a risk for poor quality of life.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2025Article
- Comparing the Accuracy of Different Wearable Activity Monitors in Patients With Lung Cancer and Providing Initial Recommendations: Protocol for a Pilot Validation Study.JMIR research protocols · 2025Article
- Using Wear Time for the Analysis of Consumer-Grade Wearables' Data: Case Study Using Fitbit Data.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2025Article
- The temporal dynamics of the association between daily physical activity and life satisfaction.Annals of behavioral medicine : a publication of the Society of Behavioral Medicine · 2025Article
- Analysis of Physical Activity Using Wearable Health Technology in US Adults Enrolled in the All of Us Research Program: Multiyear Observational Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Observational
- Addressing rural health disparities by optimizing "high-touch" intervention components in digital obesity treatment: The iREACH Rural study.Contemporary clinical trials · 2024Article
- Missing Data Statistics Provide Causal Insights into Data Loss in Diabetes Health Monitoring by Wearable Sensors.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Geospatial Analysis of Neighborhood Environmental Stress in Relation to Biological Markers of Cardiovascular Health and Health Behaviors in Women: Protocol for a Pilot Study.JMIR research protocols · 2021Article
- Defining Valid Activity Monitor Data: A Multimethod Analysis of Weight-Loss Intervention Participants' Barriers to Wear and First 100 Days of Physical Activity.Informatics (MDPI) · 2021Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
There is no established method for processing data from commercially available physical activity trackers. This study aims to develop a standardized approach to defining valid wear time for use in future interventions and analyses. Sixteen African American women (mean age = 62.1 years and mean body mass index = 35.5 kg/m2) wore the Fitbit Charge 2 for 20 days. Method 1 defined a valid day as ≥10-hr wear time with heart rate data. Method 2 removed minutes without heart rate data, minutes with heart rate ≤ mean - 2 SDs below mean and ≤2 steps, and nighttime. Linear regression modeled steps per day per week change. Using Method 1 (n = 292 person-days), participants had 20.5 (SD = 4.3) hr wear time per day compared with 16.3 (SD = 2.2) hr using Method 2 (n = 282) (p < .0001). With Method 1, participants took 7,436 (SD = 3,543) steps per day compared with 7,298 (SD = 3,501) steps per day with Method 2 (p = .64). The proposed algorithm represents a novel approach to standardizing data generated by physical activity trackers. Future studies are needed to improve the accuracy of physical activity data sets.
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.