ArticlePloS one2024
Accuracy of consumer-based activity trackers to measure and coach patients with lower limb lymphoedema.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study investigated the accuracy of activity trackers in chronic lower limb lymphoedema (LLL) patients and in comparison to matched controls. MATERIALS AND
methodsSeventeen LLL patients and 35 healthy subjects wore an activity tracker at the hip (Fitbit Zip/Inspire; hip-AT) and one at the wrist (Fitbit Alta/Inspire; wrist-AT) combined with a reference activity monitor (Dynaport Movemonitor; DAM), for 14 consecutive days. To analyze accuracy and agreement, mean daily step count from both AT's were compared to DAM. To evaluate the accuracy as coaching tool, day-by-day differences were calculated. The Kendall correlation coefficient was used to test consistency of ranking daily steps between the AT's and the DAM.
resultsThe wrist-AT significantly overestimated daily step count compared to DAM in the LLL group (+1221 ± 1754 steps per day, p = 0.011) while the hip-AT underestimated the step count, although not significantly. Similar results were found in the healthy control group. As a coaching tool, both wrist-AT and hip-AT showed a moderate correlation with the DAM (r = 0.507 and 0.622, respectively) in the LLL group regarding consistency of ranking from most to least active days.
conclusionWrist-AT's significantly overestimate daily step count in a LLL population. As a coaching tool, both trackers show moderate validity, indicating applicability to improve physical activity.
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.