Observational studyMuscle & nerve2026
Comparison of Consumer Smartwatch and Research-Grade Accelerometer-Derived Step Counts in Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis.
Observational study in Muscle & nerve, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
INTRODUCTION/
aimsObjective, scalable measures of function are needed in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). Research-grade accelerometers are promising but may be difficult to deploy for prolonged remote monitoring, whereas consumer smartwatches offer a practical alternative. We evaluated the feasibility of long-term smartwatch monitoring in ALS and compared smartwatch- and accelerometer-derived daily step counts.
methodsIn this single-centre prospective observational study, participants wore a Fitbit Sense (smartwatch) on the wrist longitudinally and an ActiGraph GT9X Link (accelerometer) on the opposite wrist during clinic-aligned assessment periods. Device comparison was restricted to concurrent valid days (≥ 10 h wear) and included paired comparison of mean daily step counts, Pearson correlation, Bland-Altman analysis, and proportional bias assessment.
resultsForty participants were enrolled and 39 contributed data across 8093 smartwatch and 915 accelerometer days. Step count comparison included 503 concurrent valid days from 34 participants. Mean daily step counts were 3480 (SD 4365) for smartwatch and 4066 (SD 4797) for accelerometer (p < 0.0001), with strong correlation (r = 0.91, p < 0.0001). Mean bias was -586 steps for smartwatch, with 95% limits of agreement from -4193 to 3021. Among participants with ≥ 6 months of concurrent data, devices showed similar decline over time (interaction p = 0.76). DISCUSSION: Long-term remote monitoring using a smartwatch was feasible in ALS. Smartwatch-derived step counts were strongly correlated with accelerometer-derived estimates but were systematically lower and showed wide day-level limits of agreement. Smartwatch-derived step counts may be useful for group-level analyses and longitudinal monitoring, though device-specific bias should be considered in interpretation.
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.