Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35445837›Full record

ReviewEuropean journal of applied physiology2022

Wearable activity trackers-advanced technology or advanced marketing?

Ren-Jay Shei, Ian G Holder, Alicia S Oumsang, Brittni A Paris, Hunter L Paris

Registry-linked trialAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in European journal of applied physiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05887518 (The Effect of Sock Developed Wıth Wearable Technology for Patıents Undergoıng Transurethral Resectıon Surgery on the Development of Hypothermıa and Venous Thromboembolısm), which is not on this map. Cited by 67 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
67citing papers in PubMed, 4 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.

NCT05887518 nawithdrawnnot on this mapstarted 2023, after this paper: background citation

The Effect of Sock Developed Wıth Wearable Technology for Patıents Undergoıng Transurethral Resectıon Surgery on the Development of Hypothermıa and Venous Thromboembolısm

TypeinterventionalSponsorTarsus UniversityRan2023 to 2024Enrolled0ConditionsTransurethral Resection, Wearable Devices, Venous Thromboembolism, HypothermiaArmsSocks Developed with Wearable Technology
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

67 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. A Geometrically Transient Platform for Bioelectronic Implants.Advanced materials (Deerfield Beach, Fla.) · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Observational
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

7 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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.

Ren-Jay SheiIndiana University Alumni Association, Indiana University, 1000 E 17th Street, Bloomington, IN, 47408, USA. reshei@alumni.iu.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7733-643X
Ian G HolderDepartment of Sports Medicine, Pepperdine University, Malibu, CA, USA.
Alicia S OumsangDepartment of Sports Medicine, Pepperdine University, Malibu, CA, USA.
Brittni A ParisDepartment of Sports Medicine, Pepperdine University, Malibu, CA, USA.
Hunter L ParisDepartment of Sports Medicine, Pepperdine University, Malibu, CA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4153-7053

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Wearable devices represent one of the most popular trends in health and fitness. Rapid advances in wearable technology present a dizzying display of possible functions: from thermometers and barometers, magnetometers and accelerometers, to oximeters and calorimeters. Consumers and practitioners utilize wearable devices to track outcomes, such as energy expenditure, training load, step count, and heart rate. While some rely on these devices in tandem with more established tools, others lean on wearable technology for health-related outcomes, such as heart rhythm analysis, peripheral oxygen saturation, sleep quality, and caloric expenditure. Given the increasing popularity of wearable devices for both recreation and health initiatives, understanding the strengths and limitations of these technologies is increasingly relevant. Need exists for continued evaluation of the efficacy of wearable devices to accurately and reliably measure purported outcomes. The purposes of this review are (1) to assess the current state of wearable devices using recent research on validity and reliability, (2) to describe existing gaps between physiology and technology, and (3) to offer expert interpretation for the lay and professional audience on how best to approach wearable technology and employ it in the pursuit of health and fitness. Current literature demonstrates inconsistent validity and reliability for various metrics, with algorithms not publicly available or lacking high-quality validation studies. Advancements in wearable technology should consider standardizing validation metrics, providing transparency in used algorithms, and improving how technology can be tailored to individuals. Until then, it is prudent to exercise caution when interpreting metrics reported from consumer-wearable devices.

Indexed as

Fitness TrackersWearable Electronic DevicesHumansMarketingReproducibility of ResultsTechnologyEnergy expenditureFitnessHealth monitoringPhysical activityStep countVO2maxWearable technology

Identifiers

PMID35445837
PMCPMC9022022

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.