ArticlePloS one2024
Validation of activity trackers to estimate energy expenditure in older adults with cardiovascular risk factors.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo compare different types of activity trackers recording physical activity energy expenditure (PAEE) and examine their criterion validity against indirect calorimetry (IC) as the gold standard in adults over 60 years of age with a special focus on women with cardiovascular risk.
designSynchronous registrations of PAEE were performed with up to four different devices to determine criterion validity against IC while participants performed a protocol of simulated activities in a laboratory setting.
methodThirty-four participants (25 women, 9 men) with at least a light cardiac risk performed a protocol of simulated activities in a laboratory setting (daily living activities, cycle ergometer test). PAEE was simultaneously assessed by IC, two research-grade activity trackers (ActiGraph-wGT3X-BT and Actiheart-4) and two consumer-level activity trackers (OMRON pedometer and Fitbit Charge-3). Tracker-derived PAEE was compared with PAEE calculated from IC descriptively and by Bland-Altman plots.
resultsThe ActiGraph (0.7 ± 0.4 kcal/min), the Actiheart (1.1 ± 0.6 kcal/min) and the OMRON (0.8 ± 0.6 kcal/min) underestimated, while the Fitbit (3.4 ± 1.2 kcal/min) overestimated PAEE compared to IC-PAEE (2.0 ± 0.5 kcal/min). The Bland-Altman limits of agreement (LoA) against IC were +0.5/+2.2 kcal/min for the ActiGraph, -0.3/+2.1 kcal/min for the Actiheart, -3.7/+1.0 kcal/min for the Fitbit, and -0.5/+2.9 kcal/min for the OMRON. The magnitude of the deviation varied considerably depending on the activity (e.g. walking, cleaning, cycle ergometer test).
conclusionsThe research-grade activity trackers estimated PAEE with higher validity than the commercially available activity trackers. The partly very wide LoA have to be critically considered when assessing PAEE in the context of health service research, as individual Physical Activity behaviour may be under- or overestimated.
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.