Dataset Information

Validation of the Fitbit Charge 2 compared to the ActiGraph GT3X+ in older adults with knee osteoarthritis in free-living conditions.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE:To evaluate physical activity (PA) and sedentary time in subjects with knee osteoarthritis (OA) measured by the Fitbit Charge 2 (Fitbit) and a wrist-worn ActiGraph GT3X+ (AGW) compared to the hip-worn ActiGraph (AGH). DESIGN:We recruited a cohort of subjects with knee OA from rheumatology clinics. Subjects wore the AGH for four weeks, AGW for two weeks, and Fitbit for two weeks over a four-week study period. We collected accelerometer counts (ActiGraphs) and steps (ActiGraphs, Fitbit) and calculated time spent in sedentary, light, and moderate-to-vigorous activity. We used triaxial PA intensity count cut-points from the literature for ActiGraph and a stride length-based cadence algorithm to categorize Fitbit PA. We compared Fitbit wear times calculated from a step-based algorithm and a novel algorithm that incorporates steps and heart rate (HR). RESULTS:We enrolled 15 subjects (67% female, mean age 68 years). Relative to AGH, Fitbit, on average, overestimated steps by 39% and sedentary time by 37% and underestimated MVPA by 5 minutes. Relative to AGH, AGW overestimated steps 116%, underestimated sedentary time by 66%, and captured 281 additional MVPA minutes. The step-based wear time Fitbit algorithm captured 14% less wear time than the HR-based algorithm. CONCLUSIONS:Fitbit overestimates steps and underestimates MVPA in knee OA subjects. Cut-offs validated for AGW should be developed to support the use of AGW for PA assessment. The HR-based Fitbit algorithm captured more wear time than the step-based algorithm. These data provide critical insight for researchers planning to use commercially-available accelerometers in pragmatic studies.

SUBMITTER: Collins JE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6353569 | biostudies-literature | 2019

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Validation of the Fitbit Charge 2 compared to the ActiGraph GT3X+ in older adults with knee osteoarthritis in free-living conditions.

Collins Jamie E JE Yang Heidi Y HY Trentadue Taylor P TP Gong Yusi Y Losina Elena E

PloS one 20190130 1

<h4>Objective</h4>To evaluate physical activity (PA) and sedentary time in subjects with knee osteoarthritis (OA) measured by the Fitbit Charge 2 (Fitbit) and a wrist-worn ActiGraph GT3X+ (AGW) compared to the hip-worn ActiGraph (AGH).<h4>Design</h4>We recruited a cohort of subjects with knee OA from rheumatology clinics. Subjects wore the AGH for four weeks, AGW for two weeks, and Fitbit for two weeks over a four-week study period. We collected accelerometer counts (ActiGraphs) and steps (ActiG ...[more]

PMID: 30699159

Similar Datasets

Project description:Objectives: Our count-scaled algorithm automatically scores sleep across 24 hours to process sleep timing, quantity, and quality. The aim of this study was to validate the algorithm against overnight PSG in children to determine the best site placement for sleep. Methods: 28 children (5-8 years) with no history of sleep disturbance wore two types of accelerometers (ActiGraph GT3X+ and Actical) at two sites (left hip, non-dominant wrist) for 24-h. Data were processed using the count-scaled algorithm. PSG data were collected using an in-home Type 2 device. PSG-actigraphy epoch sensitivity (sleep agreement) and specificity (wake agreement) were determined and sleep outcomes compared for timing (onset and offset), quantity [sleep period time (SPT) and total sleep time (TST)], and quality metrics [sleep efficiency and waking after sleep onset (WASO)]. Results: Overall, sensitivities were high (89.1% to 99.5%) and specificities low (21.1% to 45.7%). Sleep offset was accurately measured by actigraphy, regardless of brand or placement site. By contrast, sleep onset agreed with PSG using hip-positioned but not wrist-positioned devices (difference ActiGraph : PSG 21 min, P < .001; Actical : PSG 14 min, P < .001). The ActiGraph at the wrist accurately detected WASO and sleep efficiency, but under (-34 min, P < .001) and overestimated (5.8%, P < .001) these at the hip. The Actical under- and over-estimated these variables respectively at both sites. Results for TST varied ranging from significant differences to PSG of -26 to 21 min (ActiGraph wrist and hip respectively) and 9 min (ns) to 59 min for Actical (wrist and hip respectively). Conclusion: Overall the count-scaled algorithm produced high sensitivity at the expense of low specificity in comparison with PSG. A best site placement for estimates of all sleep variables could not be determined, but overall the results suggested ActiGraph GT3X+ at the hip may be superior for sleep timing and quantity metrics, whereas the wrist may be superior for sleep quality metrics. Both devices placed at the hip performed well for sleep timing but not for sleep quality. Differences are likely linked to freedom of movement of the wrist vs the trunk (hip) during overnight sleep.

Project description:BackgroundMultisensor fitness trackers offer the ability to longitudinally estimate sleep quality in a home environment with the potential to outperform traditional actigraphy. To benefit from these new tools for objectively assessing sleep for clinical and research purposes, multisensor wearable devices require careful validation against the gold standard of sleep polysomnography (PSG). Naturalistic studies favor validation.ObjectiveThis study aims to validate the Fitbit Charge 2 against portable home PSG in a shift-work population composed of 59 first responder police officers and paramedics undergoing shift work.MethodsA reliable comparison between the two measurements was ensured through the data-driven alignment of a PSG and Fitbit time series that was recorded at night. Epoch-by-epoch analyses and Bland-Altman plots were used to assess sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, the Matthews correlation coefficient, bias, and limits of agreement.ResultsSleep onset and offset, total sleep time, and the durations of rapid eye movement (REM) sleep and non-rapid-eye movement sleep stages N1+N2 and N3 displayed unbiased estimates with nonnegligible limits of agreement. In contrast, the proprietary Fitbit algorithm overestimated REM sleep latency by 29.4 minutes and wakefulness after sleep onset (WASO) by 37.1 minutes. Epoch-by-epoch analyses indicated better specificity than sensitivity, with higher accuracies for WASO (0.82) and REM sleep (0.86) than those for N1+N2 (0.55) and N3 (0.78) sleep. Fitbit heart rate (HR) displayed a small underestimation of 0.9 beats per minute (bpm) and a limited capability to capture sudden HR changes because of the lower time resolution compared to that of PSG. The underestimation was smaller in N2, N3, and REM sleep (0.6-0.7 bpm) than in N1 sleep (1.2 bpm) and wakefulness (1.9 bpm), indicating a state-specific bias. Finally, Fitbit suggested a distribution of all sleep episode durations that was different from that derived from PSG and showed nonbiological discontinuities, indicating the potential limitations of the staging algorithm.ConclusionsWe conclude that by following careful data processing processes, the Fitbit Charge 2 can provide reasonably accurate mean values of sleep and HR estimates in shift workers under naturalistic conditions. Nevertheless, the generally wide limits of agreement hamper the precision of quantifying individual sleep episodes. The value of this consumer-grade multisensor wearable in terms of tackling clinical and research questions could be enhanced with open-source algorithms, raw data access, and the ability to blind participants to their own sleep data.

Project description:BackgroundPhysical activity (PA) is reduced in persons with multiple sclerosis (MS), though it is known to aid in symptom and fatigue management. Methods for measuring PA are diverse and the impact of this heterogeneity on study outcomes is unclear. We aimed to clarify this impact by comparing common methods for deriving PA metrics in MS populations.MethodsFirst, a rapid review of existing literature identified methods for calculating PA in studies which used the Actigraph GT3X in populations with MS. We then compared methods in a prospective study on 42 persons with MS [EDSS 4.5 (3.5-6)] during a voluntary course of inpatient neurorehabilitation. Mixed-effects linear regression identified methodological factors which influenced PA measurements. Non-parametric hypothesis tests, correlations, and agreement statistics assessed overall and pairwise differences between methods.ResultsIn the rapid review, searches identified 421 unique records. Sixty-nine records representing 51 eligible studies exhibited substantial heterogeneity in methodology and reporting practices. In a subsequent comparative study, multiple methods for deriving six PA metrics (step count, activity counts, total time in PA, sedentary time, time in light PA, time in moderate to vigorous PA), were identified and directly compared. All metrics were sensitive to methodological factors such as the selected preprocessing filter, data source (vertical vs. vector magnitude counts), and cutpoint. Additionally, sedentary time was sensitive to wear time definitions. Pairwise correlation and agreement between methods varied from weak (minimum correlation: 0.15, minimum agreement: 0.03) to perfect (maximum correlation: 1.00, maximum agreement: 1.00). Methodological factors biased both point estimates of PA and correlations between PA and clinical assessments.ConclusionsMethodological heterogeneity of existing literature is high, and this heterogeneity may confound studies which use the Actigraph GT3X. Step counts were highly sensitive to the filter used to process raw accelerometer data. Sedentary time was particularly sensitive to methodology, and we recommend using total time in PA instead. Several, though not all, methods for deriving light PA and moderate to vigorous PA yielded nearly identical results. PA metrics based on vertical axis counts tended to outperform those based on vector magnitude counts. Additional research is needed to establish the relative validity of existing methods.

Dataset Information

Validation of the Fitbit Charge 2 compared to the ActiGraph GT3X+ in older adults with knee osteoarthritis in free-living conditions.

Publications

Validation of the Fitbit Charge 2 compared to the ActiGraph GT3X+ in older adults with knee osteoarthritis in free-living conditions.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets