ArticleJMIR biomedical engineering2024
Agreement Between Apple Watch and Actical Step Counts in a Community Setting: Cross-Sectional Investigation From the Framingham Heart Study.
Article in JMIR biomedical engineering, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Validity and Wear Compliance of Wrist-Worn Consumer Activity Trackers Among Japanese School-Aged Children Under Free-Living Conditions.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundStep counting is comparable among many research-grade and consumer-grade accelerometers in laboratory settings.
objectiveThe purpose of this study was to compare the agreement between Actical and Apple Watch step-counting in a community setting.
methodsAmong Third Generation Framingham Heart Study participants (N=3486), we examined the agreement of step-counting between those who wore a consumer-grade accelerometer (Apple Watch Series 0) and a research-grade accelerometer (Actical) on the same days. Secondarily, we examined the agreement during each hour when both devices were worn to account for differences in wear time between devices.
resultsWe studied 523 participants (n=3223 person-days, mean age 51.7, SD 8.9 years; women: n=298, 57.0%). Between devices, we observed modest correlation (intraclass correlation [ICC] 0.56, 95% CI 0.54-0.59), poor continuous agreement (29.7%, n=957 of days having steps counts with ≤15% difference), a mean difference of 499 steps per day higher count by Actical, and wide limits of agreement, roughly ±9000 steps per day. However, devices showed stronger agreement in identifying who meets various steps per day thresholds (eg, at 8000 steps per day, kappa coefficient=0.49), for which devices were concordant for 74.8% (n=391) of participants. In secondary analyses, in the hours during which both devices were worn (n=456 participants, n=18,760 person-hours), the correlation was much stronger (ICC 0.86, 95% CI 0.85-0.86), but continuous agreement remained poor (27.3%, n=5115 of hours having step counts with ≤15% difference) between devices and was slightly worse for those with mobility limitations or obesity.
conclusionsOur investigation suggests poor overall agreement between steps counted by the Actical device and those counted by the Apple Watch device, with stronger agreement in discriminating who meets certain step thresholds. The impact of these challenges may be minimized if accelerometers are used by individuals to determine whether they are meeting physical activity guidelines or tracking step counts. It is also possible that some of the limitations of these older accelerometers may be improved in newer devices.
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.