Open AccessAccuracy and Acceptability of Wrist-Wearable Activity-Tracking Devices: Systematic Review of the Literature
Author(s) -
Federico Germini,
Noella Noronha,
Victoria Borg Debono,
Binu Abraham Phillip,
Drashti Pete,
Tamara Navarro,
Arun Keepanasseril,
Sameer Parpia,
Kerstin de Wit,
Alfonso Iorio
Publication year - 2022
Publication title -
jmir. journal of medical internet research/journal of medical internet research
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.446
H-Index - 142
eISSN - 1439-4456
pISSN - 1438-8871
DOI - 10.2196/30791
Subject(s) - activity tracker , wearable computer , population , medicine , wearable technology , physical therapy , physical medicine and rehabilitation , meta analysis , medline , physical activity , computer science , environmental health , political science , law , embedded system
Background Numerous wrist-wearable devices to measure physical activity are currently available, but there is a need to unify the evidence on how they compare in terms of acceptability and accuracy. Objective The aim of this study is to perform a systematic review of the literature to assess the accuracy and acceptability (willingness to use the device for the task it is designed to support) of wrist-wearable activity trackers. Methods We searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and SPORTDiscus for studies measuring physical activity in the general population using wrist-wearable activity trackers. We screened articles for inclusion and, for the included studies, reported data on the studies’ setting and population, outcome measured, and risk of bias. Results A total of 65 articles were included in our review. Accuracy was assessed for 14 different outcomes, which can be classified in the following categories: count of specific activities (including step counts), time spent being active, intensity of physical activity (including energy expenditure), heart rate, distance, and speed. Substantial clinical heterogeneity did not allow us to perform a meta-analysis of the results. The outcomes assessed most frequently were step counts, heart rate, and energy expenditure. For step counts, the Fitbit Charge (or the Fitbit Charge HR) had a mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) 30% for all the brands, showing poor accuracy across devices. Acceptability was most frequently measured through data availability and wearing time. Data availability was ≥75% for the Fitbit Charge HR, Fitbit Flex 2, and Garmin Vivofit. The wearing time was 89% for both the GENEActiv and Nike FuelBand. Conclusions The Fitbit Charge and Fitbit Charge HR were consistently shown to have a good accuracy for step counts and the Apple Watch for measuring heart rate. None of the tested devices proved to be accurate in measuring energy expenditure. Efforts should be made to reduce the heterogeneity among studies.