ArticleJMIR formative research2026
Validity of Galaxy Watch for Estimating Energy Expenditure During Intermittent Running: Cross-Sectional Study.
Article in JMIR formative research, 2026. 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.
- The Effectiveness of NIRS-Based Wearable Devices in Estimating Physical Activity Intensity in Patients with Chronic Non-Communicable Diseases: A Structured Narrative Review.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Smartwatches have gained popularity for their potential to provide accurate measurements of various physiological parameters. However, the validity of energy expenditure (EE) across different smartwatch models remains a topic of ongoing investigation. Discrepancies between results obtained from different models and gold standard methods are particularly critical across varying exercise intensities and types, as validation studies have demonstrated overestimation when wearable activity monitors are compared with indirect calorimetry. Objective: This study investigated the accuracy of 2 versions of the Samsung smartwatch (Galaxy Watch [GW] 6 and 7) in measuring EE during intermittent moderate-intensity running exercises, using indirect calorimetry as the gold standard method. Methods: This study included 148 healthy adults, comprising 80 men and 68 women. Participants performed intermittent treadmill running, consisting of walking at 5 km·h⁻¹ for 1 minute and running between 8 and 16 km·h⁻¹ for 2 minutes, based on participant preference, for a total duration of 27 minutes. The GW6 and GW7 models were used and EE was measured by indirect calorimetry using a wearable portable metabolic gas analysis system (K5; Cosmed), which is considered a gold standard method. Results: No statistically significant differences were found between the GW models and the K5. The K5 showed a mean EE of 213.60 (SD 43.04) kilocalories, compared with 219.53 (SD 35.70) kilocalories for the GW6 and 202.67 (SD 47.42) kilocalories for the GW7 (all P>.05). Good Spearman correlations (0.63-0.70) and moderate intraclass correlation coefficients (0.65-0.74) were found. Mean absolute percentage error values ranged from 10.10% to 12.55%. Bland-Altman analysis revealed limits of agreement for all comparisons (K5 vs GW6 and GW7, -61.93 to 65.80 kcal). Conclusions: The GW6 and GW7 devices showed moderate validity for estimating EE during intermittent running exercises, demonstrating the suitability of the GW as a low-cost and practical wearable option for daily physical activities.
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.