Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39930990›Full record

ArticleJMIR formative research2025

Step Count Accuracy of the Life Plus Connected Watch at Different Localizations and Speeds in Healthy Adults, Patients With Cardiovascular Disease, and Patients With Peripheral Artery Disease: Step Count Validation Study in Laboratory Settings.

Anne-Noëlle Heizmann, Edouard Ollier, Pierre Labeix, Ivan Goujon, Frédéric Roche, Claire Le Hello

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR formative research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Anne-Noëlle HeizmannINSERM, SAINBIOSE U1059, Saint-Priest-en-Jarez, France.ORCID 0000-0002-2895-4530
Edouard OllierINSERM, SAINBIOSE U1059, Saint-Priest-en-Jarez, France.ORCID 0000-0001-6925-2941
Pierre LabeixDepartment of Physiology, University Hospital of Saint-Etienne, Saint-Etienne, France.
Ivan GoujonDepartment of Physiology, University Hospital of Saint-Etienne, Saint-Etienne, France.
Frédéric RocheINSERM, SAINBIOSE U1059, Saint-Priest-en-Jarez, France.ORCID 0000-0001-6115-7958
Claire Le HelloINSERM, SAINBIOSE U1059, Saint-Priest-en-Jarez, France.ORCID 0000-0002-3355-745X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Smartwatches are increasingly used to monitor and motivate physical activity. Patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD) and peripheral artery disease (PAD) often do not meet national physical activity recommendations. They may, thus, benefit from a physical activity program using smartwatches. The Life Plus smartwatch is designed to facilitate activity monitoring by counting steps, but its validity needs to be determined, particularly in patients who may not have a normal gait, such as those with cardiovascular pathology. Objective: This study evaluates the accuracy of the Life Plus smartwatch (versions 2 and 3) in healthy adults, patients with CVD, and patients with PAD at different walking speeds (1.8, 2.5, 3.2, and 4 km/h) and different localizations (wrists, hips, and ankles) to determine best accuracy. Methods: In total, 34 participants, comprising healthy individuals (n=10), patients with CVD (n=14), and patients with PAD (n=10), wore 6 Life Plus watches simultaneously (3 of version 2 and 3 of version 3), located on wrists, hips, and ankles. Participants walked on a treadmill for 3-minute sessions at speeds of 1.8, 2.5, 3.2, and 4 km/h; they then performed a 10-minute free walking on the ground and again walked for 3-minute sessions on a treadmill at the same speeds. Actual step counts were recorded through video footage. Results: When worn at the wrist, no significant difference between the actual number of steps and step count by version 2 watches was found in each group independently (healthy group: P=.25; CVD group: P=.50; and PAD group: P=.37). Significant differences were found with the version 2 watches at the wrist in the healthy group at 3.2 (-5.26%; P=.01) and 4 km/h (-6.13%; P=.008) and in the CVD group at 2.5 (-5.94%; P=.008), 3.2(-13.1%; P=.008), and 4 km/h (-13.96%; P=.004). When worn at the wrist, no significant difference between actual number of steps and step count by version 3 watches was found in the healthy group (P=.02) and the PAD group (P=.90). Significant differences were found with the version 3 watches at the wrist in the CVD group at 3.2 (-6.43%; P=.001) and 4 km/h (-7.3%; P=.01) and in the PAD group at 4 km/h (-5.77%; P=.04). Conclusions: For optimized counting when worn at the wrist, healthy individuals should prefer version 2 watches for slow walking (1.8 and 2.5 km/h) and version 3 for higher speeds (3.2 and 4 km/h). Patients (CVD and PAD) should prefer version 2 watches at 1.8 km/h and version 3 watches for higher speeds (2.5, 3.2, and 4 km/h).

Indexed as

Cardiovascular DiseasesFitness TrackersPeripheral Arterial DiseaseAdultAgedExerciseFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedReproducibility of ResultsWalkingaccuracyarterycardiologycardiovascularcardiovascular diseaseexerciseheartmobile phonemonitoringperipheral artery diseasephysical activityphysical activity assessmentsmartwatchesstepsvalidationwalkingwearable physical activity monitoring devicewearables

Identifiers

PMID39930990
PMCPMC11833183

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.