ArticleDigital health
Accuracy of wrist-worn activity trackers for measuring steps in patients after major abdominal surgery: A validation study.
Article in Digital health. 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.
- Application of goal-directed quantitative activity management based on wearable technology in children with appendicitis: a retrospective cohort study.American journal of translational research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Wearable activity trackers provide a simple and objective measurement of postoperative mobilization. However, few have validated the accuracy of trackers in patients after major abdominal surgery. Objective: To examine the accuracy of wrist-worn activity trackers to measure steps of patients in early mobilization after major abdominal surgery, and to explore the influence of clinical variables and gait parameters on the accuracy of trackers. Methods: Forty-five patients after major abdominal surgery were recruited to participate in modified six-minute walk tests wearing three trackers simultaneously, the Fitbit Inspire HR, Xiaomi MI 4, and HONOR 5. The differences in displayed steps before and after the walking test were considered as the step counts measured by the trackers; the actual steps taken were determined as the average of the values manually counted by two researchers. The intraclass correlation coefficient, Bland-Altman method, mean percentage error, and mean absolute percentage error were used to assess the accuracy of trackers with reference to manual step counts. Results: The three trackers undercounted postoperative steps by -65.5% to -23.5%. Analysis showed low-to-good agreement between step counts recorded by trackers and actual steps (ICC = 0.35-0.75); the mean absolute percentage errors ranged from 24.5% to 65.7%. For all trackers, mean absolute percentage errors correlated negatively with postoperative days ( Conclusions: The specific activity trackers used in this study might not be reliable tools for measuring steps counts during the walking test in the early postoperative period for patients undergoing major abdominal surgery.
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.