ArticleFrontiers in rehabilitation sciences2021
Validity and Acceptability of Wearable Devices for Monitoring Step-Count and Activity Minutes Among People With Multiple Sclerosis.
Article in Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Rethinking prognosis in multiple sclerosis: a multiaxial perspective.Nature reviews. Neurology · 2026Review
- Self-Reported Acceptance of a Wearable Activity Monitor in Persons With Stroke: Usability Study.JMIR cardio · 2025Article
- Sensors in Multiple Sclerosis.Current neurology and neuroscience reports · 2025Review
- Every Step Counts-How Can We Accurately Count Steps with Wearable Sensors During Activities of Daily Living in Individuals with Neurological Conditions?Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Actionable Wearables Data for the Neurology Clinic: A Proof-of-Concept Tool.Annals of clinical and translational neurology · 2025Article
- Impact of Usual-Care Physiotherapy on Physical Activity and Self-Efficacy in People With Multiple Sclerosis: An Observational Longitudinal Study.International journal of MS care · 2025Article
- Artificial intelligence and science of patient input: a perspective from people with multiple sclerosis.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Article
- Multi-Activity Step Counting Algorithm Using Deep Learning Foot Flat Detection with an IMU Inside the Sole of a Shoe.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Exploring the Major Barriers to Physical Activity in Persons With Multiple Sclerosis: Observational Longitudinal Study.JMIR rehabilitation and assistive technologies · 2024Article
- Leveraging Emerging Technologies to Expand Accessibility and Improve Precision in Rehabilitation and Exercise for People with Disabilities.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2024Review
- Measurement properties of device-based physical activity instruments in ambulatory adults with physical disabilities and/or chronic diseases: a scoping review.BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation · 2023Article
- Non-equivalent, but still valid: Establishing the construct validity of a consumer fitness tracker in persons with multiple sclerosis.PLOS digital health · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Multiple wearable devices that purport to measure physical activity are widely available to consumers. While they may support increases in physical activity among people with multiple sclerosis (MS) by providing feedback on their performance, there is little information about the validity and acceptability of these devices. Providing devices that are perceived as inaccurate and difficult to use may have negative consequences for people with MS, rather than supporting participation in physical activity. The aim of this study was, therefore, to assess the validity and acceptability of commercially available devices for monitoring step-count and activity time among people with MS. Nineteen ambulatory adults with MS [mean (SD) age 52.1 (11.9) years] participated in the study. Step-count was assessed using five commercially available devices (Fitbit Alta, Fitbit Zip, Garmin Vivofit 4, Yamax Digi Walker SW200, and Letscom monitor) and an activPAL3μ while completing nine everyday activities. Step-count was also manually counted. Time in light activity, moderate-to-vigorous activity, and total activity were measured during activities using an Actigraph GT3X accelerometer. Of the 19 participants who completed the validity study, fifteen of these people also wore the five commercially available devices for three consecutive days each, and participated in a semi-structured interview regarding their perception of the acceptability of the monitors. Mean percentage error for step-count ranged from 12.1% for the Yamax SW200 to -112.3% for the Letscom. Mean step-count as manually determined differed to mean step-count measured by the Fitbit Alta (
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.