Systematic Review of Fitbit Charge 2 Validation Studies for Exercise Tracking.

Context: There are research-grade devices that have been validated to measure either heart rate (HR) by electrocardiography (ECG) with a Polar chest strap, or step count with ACTiGraph accelerometer. However, wearable activity trackers that measure HR and steps concurrently have been tested against research-grade accelerometers and HR monitors with conflicting results. This review examines validation studies of the Fitbit Charge 2 (FBC2) for accuracy in measuring HR and step count and evaluates the device's reliability for use by researchers and clinicians. Design: This registered review was conducted using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The robvis (risk-of-bias visualization) tool was used to assess the strength of each considered article. Eligibility Criteria: Eligible articles published between 2018 and 2019 were identified using PubMed, CINHAL, Embase, Cochran, and World of Science databases and hand-searches. All articles were HR and/or step count validation studies for the FBC2 in adult ambulatory populations. Study Selection: Eight articles were examined in accordance with the eligibility criteria alignment and agreement among the authors and research librarian. Main Outcome Measures: Concordance correlation coefficients (CCC) were used to measure agreement between the tracker and criterion devices. Mean absolute percent error (MAPE) was used to average the individual absolute percent errors. Results: Studies that measured CCC found agreement between the FBC2 and criterion devices ranged between 26% and 92% for HR monitoring, decreasing in accuracy as exercise intensity increased. Inversely, CCC increased from 38% to 99% for step count when exercise intensity increased. HR error between MAPE was 9.21% to 68% and showed more error as exercise intensity increased. Step measurement error MAPE was 12% for healthy persons aged 24-72 years but was reported at 46% in an older population with heart failure. Conclusions: Relative agreement with criterion and low-to-moderate MAPE were consistent in most studies reviewed and support validation of the FBC2 to accurately measure HR at low or moderate exercise intensities. However, more investigation controlling testing and measurement congruency is needed to validate step capabilities. The literature supports the validity of the FBC2 to accurately monitor HR, but for step count is inconclusive so the device may not be suitable for recommended use in all populations.