Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35622397›Full record

ArticleJMIR formative research2022

Polar Vantage and Oura Physical Activity and Sleep Trackers: Validation and Comparison Study.

André Henriksen, Frode Svartdal, Sameline Grimsgaard, Gunnar Hartvigsen, Laila Arnesdatter Hopstock

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR formative research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed
4.4field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
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

31 citing papers in PubMed, 42 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Observational
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.

André HenriksenDepartment of Computer Science, UiT The Arctic University of Norway, Troms, Norway.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0918-7444
Frode SvartdalDepartment of Psychology, UiT The Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø, Norway.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4598-5670
Sameline GrimsgaardDepartment of Community Medicine, UiT The Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø, Norway.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0601-0344
Gunnar HartvigsenDepartment of Computer Science, UiT The Arctic University of Norway, Troms, Norway.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8771-9867
Laila Arnesdatter HopstockDepartment of Community Medicine, UiT The Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø, Norway.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0072-7421
UiT The Arctic University of Norway · NOUniversity of Agder · NO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundConsumer-based activity trackers are increasingly used in research, as they have the potential to promote increased physical activity and can be used for estimating physical activity among participants. However, the accuracy of newer consumer-based devices is mostly unknown, and validation studies are needed.

objectiveThe objective of this study was to compare the Polar Vantage watch (Polar Electro Oy) and Oura ring (generation 2; Ōura Health Oy) activity trackers to research-based instruments for measuring physical activity, total energy expenditure, resting heart rate, and sleep duration in free-living adults.

methodsA total of 21 participants wore 2 consumer-based activity trackers (Polar watch and Oura ring), an ActiGraph accelerometer (ActiGraph LLC), and an Actiheart accelerometer and heart rate monitor (CamNtech Ltd) and completed a sleep diary for up to 7 days. We assessed Polar watch and Oura ring validity and comparability for measuring physical activity, total energy expenditure, resting heart rate (Oura), and sleep duration. We analyzed repeated measures correlations, Bland-Altman plots, and mean absolute percentage errors.

resultsThe Polar watch and Oura ring values strongly correlated (P<.001) with the ActiGraph values for steps (Polar: r=0.75, 95% CI 0.54-0.92; Oura: r=0.77, 95% CI 0.62-0.87), moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (Polar: r=0.76, 95% CI 0.62-0.88; Oura: r=0.70, 95% CI 0.49-0.82), and total energy expenditure (Polar: r=0.69, 95% CI 0.48-0.88; Oura: r=0.70, 95% CI 0.51-0.83) and strongly or very strongly correlated (P<.001) with the sleep diary-derived sleep durations (Polar: r=0.74, 95% CI 0.56-0.88; Oura: r=0.82, 95% CI 0.68-0.91). Oura ring-derived resting heart rates had a very strong correlation (P<.001) with the Actiheart-derived resting heart rates (r=0.9, 95% CI 0.85-0.96). However, the mean absolute percentage error was high for all variables except Oura ring-derived sleep duration (10%) and resting heart rate (3%), which the Oura ring underreported on average by 1 beat per minute.

conclusionsThe Oura ring can potentially be used as an alternative to the Actiheart to measure resting heart rate. As for sleep duration, the Polar watch and Oura ring can potentially be used as replacements for a manual sleep diary, depending on the acceptable error. Neither the Polar watch nor the Oura ring can replace the ActiGraph when it comes to measuring steps, moderate-to-vigorous physical activity, and total energy expenditure, but they may be used as additional sources of physical activity measures in some settings. On average, the Polar Vantage watch reported higher outputs compared to those reported by the Oura ring for steps, moderate-to-vigorous physical activity, and total energy expenditure.

Indexed as

actigraphyactivity trackerenergy expenditurefitness trackersmotor activitysteps

Identifiers

PMID35622397
PMCPMC9187966
OpenAlexW4255353872

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.