Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36188762›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in rehabilitation sciences2021

Validity and Acceptability of Wearable Devices for Monitoring Step-Count and Activity Minutes Among People With Multiple Sclerosis.

Grace Lavelle, Meriel Norris, Julie Flemming, Jamie Harper, Joan Bradley, Helen Johnston, Jennifer Fortune, Andrea Stennett, Cherry Kilbride, Jennifer M Ryan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
–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

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Sensors in Multiple Sclerosis.Current neurology and neuroscience reports · 2025
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Actionable Wearables Data for the Neurology Clinic: A Proof-of-Concept Tool.Annals of clinical and translational neurology · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. 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

10 authors.

Grace LavelleInstitute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
Meriel NorrisCollege of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Brunel University London, London, United Kingdom.
Julie FlemmingCollege of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Brunel University London, London, United Kingdom.
Jamie HarperCollege of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Brunel University London, London, United Kingdom.
Joan BradleyThe Hillingdon Hospitals, NHS Foundation Trust, Uxbridge, United Kingdom.
Helen JohnstonThe Hillingdon Hospitals, NHS Foundation Trust, Uxbridge, United Kingdom.
Jennifer FortuneCollege of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Brunel University London, London, United Kingdom.
Andrea StennettCollege of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Brunel University London, London, United Kingdom.
Cherry KilbrideCollege of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Brunel University London, London, United Kingdom.
Jennifer M RyanCollege of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Brunel University London, London, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

acceptabilitymultiple sclerosisphysical activitystep-countvaliditywearable devices

Identifiers

PMID36188762
PMCPMC9397948

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.