Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34770539›Full record

ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2021

Smart Watch Versus Classic Receivers: Static Validity of Three GPS Devices in Different Types of Built Environments.

Michal Vorlíček, Tom Stewart, Jasper Schipperijn, Jaroslav Burian, Lukáš Rubín, Jan Dygrýn, Josef Mitáš, Scott Duncan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Investigating young children's physical activity through time and place.International journal of health geographics · 2024
    Article
  4. Review
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

8 authors.

Michal VorlíčekFaculty of Physical Culture, Palacký University Olomouc, 771 11 Olomouc, Czech Republic.ORCID 0000-0002-8317-9266
Tom StewartSchool of Sport and Recreation, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland 1010, New Zealand.ORCID 0000-0001-5915-3843
Jasper SchipperijnDepartment of Sport Science and Clinical Biomechanics, University of Southern Denmark, 5230 Odense, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-6558-7610
Jaroslav BurianFaculty of Science, Palacký University Olomouc, 771 11 Olomouc, Czech Republic.ORCID 0000-0003-0729-9757
Lukáš RubínFaculty of Physical Culture, Palacký University Olomouc, 771 11 Olomouc, Czech Republic.
Jan DygrýnFaculty of Physical Culture, Palacký University Olomouc, 771 11 Olomouc, Czech Republic.
Josef MitášFaculty of Physical Culture, Palacký University Olomouc, 771 11 Olomouc, Czech Republic.ORCID 0000-0001-7219-931X
Scott DuncanSchool of Sport and Recreation, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland 1010, New Zealand.ORCID 0000-0002-8402-2930

Funding

Palacký University, Olomouc IGA_FTK_2018_002
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In order to study the relationship between human physical activity and the design of the built environment, it is important to measure the location of human movement accurately. In this study, we compared an inexpensive GPS receiver (Holux RCV-3000) and a frequently used Garmin Forerunner 35 smart watch, with a device that has been validated and recommended for physical activity research (Qstarz BT-Q1000XT). These instruments were placed on six geodetic points, which represented a range of different environments (e.g., residential, open space, park). The coordinates recorded by each device were compared with the known coordinates of the geodetic points. There were no differences in accuracy among the three devices when averaged across the six sites. However, the Garmin was more accurate in the city center and the Holux was more accurate in the park and housing estate areas compared to the other devices. We consider the location accuracy of the Holux and the Garmin to be comparable to that of the Qstarz. Therefore, we consider these devices to be suitable instruments for locating physical activity. Researchers must also consider other differences among these devices (such as battery life) when determining if they are suitable for their research studies.

Indexed as

Built EnvironmentExerciseElectric Power SuppliesHumansaccuracyenvironmentGarmin smart watchgeodetic pointGPSlogger

Identifiers

PMID34770539
PMCPMC8588079

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.