Dataset Information

Accuracy of Wristband Fitbit Models in Assessing Sleep: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Wearable sleep monitors are of high interest to consumers and researchers because of their ability to provide estimation of sleep patterns in free-living conditions in a cost-efficient way. OBJECTIVE:We conducted a systematic review of publications reporting on the performance of wristband Fitbit models in assessing sleep parameters and stages. METHODS:In adherence with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, we comprehensively searched the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Cochrane, Embase, MEDLINE, PubMed, PsycINFO, and Web of Science databases using the keyword Fitbit to identify relevant publications meeting predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. RESULTS:The search yielded 3085 candidate articles. After eliminating duplicates and in compliance with inclusion and exclusion criteria, 22 articles qualified for systematic review, with 8 providing quantitative data for meta-analysis. In reference to polysomnography (PSG), nonsleep-staging Fitbit models tended to overestimate total sleep time (TST; range from approximately 7 to 67 mins; effect size=-0.51, P<.001; heterogenicity: I2=8.8%, P=.36) and sleep efficiency (SE; range from approximately 2% to 15%; effect size=-0.74, P<.001; heterogenicity: I2=24.0%, P=.25), and underestimate wake after sleep onset (WASO; range from approximately 6 to 44 mins; effect size=0.60, P<.001; heterogenicity: I2=0%, P=.92) and there was no significant difference in sleep onset latency (SOL; P=.37; heterogenicity: I2=0%, P=.92). In reference to PSG, nonsleep-staging Fitbit models correctly identified sleep epochs with accuracy values between 0.81 and 0.91, sensitivity values between 0.87 and 0.99, and specificity values between 0.10 and 0.52. Recent-generation Fitbit models that collectively utilize heart rate variability and body movement to assess sleep stages performed better than early-generation nonsleep-staging ones that utilize only body movement. Sleep-staging Fitbit models, in comparison to PSG, showed no significant difference in measured values of WASO (P=.25; heterogenicity: I2=0%, P=.92), TST (P=.29; heterogenicity: I2=0%, P=.98), and SE (P=.19) but they underestimated SOL (P=.03; heterogenicity: I2=0%, P=.66). Sleep-staging Fitbit models showed higher sensitivity (0.95-0.96) and specificity (0.58-0.69) values in detecting sleep epochs than nonsleep-staging models and those reported in the literature for regular wrist actigraphy. CONCLUSIONS:Sleep-staging Fitbit models showed promising performance, especially in differentiating wake from sleep. However, although these models are a convenient and economical means for consumers to obtain gross estimates of sleep parameters and time spent in sleep stages, they are of limited specificity and are not a substitute for PSG.

SUBMITTER: Haghayegh S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6908975 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundUnhealthy behaviors, such as physical inactivity, sedentary lifestyle, and unhealthful eating, remain highly prevalent, posing formidable challenges in efforts to improve cardiovascular health. While traditional interventions to promote healthy lifestyles are both costly and effective, wearable trackers, especially Fitbit devices, can provide a low-cost alternative that may effectively help large numbers of individuals become more physically fit and thereby maintain a good health status.ObjectiveThe objectives of this meta-analysis are (1) to assess the effectiveness of interventions that incorporate a Fitbit device for healthy lifestyle outcomes (eg, steps, moderate-to-vigorous physical activity, and weight) and (2) to identify which additional intervention components or study characteristics are the most effective at improving healthy lifestyle outcomes.MethodsA systematic review was conducted, searching the following databases from 2007 to 2019: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and CENTRAL (Cochrane). Studies were included if (1) they were randomized controlled trials, (2) the intervention involved the use of a Fitbit device, and (3) the reported outcomes were related to healthy lifestyles. The main outcome measures were related to physical activity, sedentary behavior, and weight. All the studies were assessed for risk of bias using Cochrane criteria. A random-effects meta-analysis was conducted to estimate the treatment effect of interventions that included a Fitbit device compared with a control group. We also conducted subgroup analysis and fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA) to further disentangle the effects of intervention components.ResultsOur final sample comprised 41 articles reporting the results of 37 studies. For Fitbit-based interventions, we found a statistically significant increase in daily step count (mean difference [MD] 950.54, 95% CI 475.89-1425.18; P<.001) and moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MD 6.16, 95% CI 2.80-9.51; P<.001), a significant decrease in weight (MD -1.48, 95% CI -2.81 to -0.14; P=.03), and a nonsignificant decrease in objectively assessed and self-reported sedentary behavior (MD -10.62, 95% CI -35.50 to 14.27; P=.40 and standardized MD -0.11, 95% CI -0.48 to 0.26; P=.56, respectively). In general, the included studies were at low risk for bias, except for performance bias. Subgroup analysis and fsQCA demonstrated that, in addition to the effects of the Fitbit devices, setting activity goals was the most important intervention component.ConclusionsThe use of Fitbit devices in interventions has the potential to promote healthy lifestyles in terms of physical activity and weight. Fitbit devices may be useful to health professionals for patient monitoring and support.Trial registrationPROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42019145450; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42019145450.

Project description:BackgroundAlthough designed as a consumer product to help motivate individuals to be physically active, Fitbit activity trackers are becoming increasingly popular as measurement tools in physical activity and health promotion research and are also commonly used to inform health care decisions.ObjectiveThe objective of this review was to systematically evaluate and report measurement accuracy for Fitbit activity trackers in controlled and free-living settings.MethodsWe conducted electronic searches using PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, and SPORTDiscus databases with a supplementary Google Scholar search. We considered original research published in English comparing Fitbit versus a reference- or research-standard criterion in healthy adults and those living with any health condition or disability. We assessed risk of bias using a modification of the Consensus-Based Standards for the Selection of Health Status Measurement Instruments. We explored measurement accuracy for steps, energy expenditure, sleep, time in activity, and distance using group percentage differences as the common rubric for error comparisons. We conducted descriptive analyses for frequency of accuracy comparisons within a ±3% error in controlled and ±10% error in free-living settings and assessed for potential bias of over- or underestimation. We secondarily explored how variations in body placement, ambulation speed, or type of activity influenced accuracy.ResultsWe included 67 studies. Consistent evidence indicated that Fitbit devices were likely to meet acceptable accuracy for step count approximately half the time, with a tendency to underestimate steps in controlled testing and overestimate steps in free-living settings. Findings also suggested a greater tendency to provide accurate measures for steps during normal or self-paced walking with torso placement, during jogging with wrist placement, and during slow or very slow walking with ankle placement in adults with no mobility limitations. Consistent evidence indicated that Fitbit devices were unlikely to provide accurate measures for energy expenditure in any testing condition. Evidence from a few studies also suggested that, compared with research-grade accelerometers, Fitbit devices may provide similar measures for time in bed and time sleeping, while likely markedly overestimating time spent in higher-intensity activities and underestimating distance during faster-paced ambulation. However, further accuracy studies are warranted. Our point estimations for mean or median percentage error gave equal weighting to all accuracy comparisons, possibly misrepresenting the true point estimate for measurement bias for some of the testing conditions we examined.ConclusionsOther than for measures of steps in adults with no limitations in mobility, discretion should be used when considering the use of Fitbit devices as an outcome measurement tool in research or to inform health care decisions, as there are seemingly a limited number of situations where the device is likely to provide accurate measurement.

Project description:BackgroundDespite being the gold-standard method for objectively assessing sleep, polysomnography (PSG) faces several limitations as it is expensive, time-consuming, and labor-intensive; requires various equipment and technical expertise; and is impractical for long-term or in-home use. Consumer wrist-worn wearables are able to monitor sleep parameters and thus could be used as an alternative for PSG. Consequently, wearables gained immense popularity over the past few years, but their accuracy has been a major concern.ObjectiveA systematic review of the literature was conducted to appraise the performance of 3 recent-generation wearable devices (Fitbit Charge 4, Garmin Vivosmart 4, and WHOOP) in determining sleep parameters and sleep stages.MethodsPer the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) statement, a comprehensive search was conducted using the PubMed, Web of Science, Google Scholar, Scopus, and Embase databases. Eligible publications were those that (1) involved the validity of sleep data of any marketed model of the candidate wearables and (2) used PSG or an ambulatory electroencephalogram monitor as a reference sleep monitoring device. Exclusion criteria were as follows: (1) incorporated a sleep diary or survey method as a reference, (2) review paper, (3) children as participants, and (4) duplicate publication of the same data and findings.ResultsThe search yielded 504 candidate articles. After eliminating duplicates and applying the eligibility criteria, 8 articles were included. WHOOP showed the least disagreement relative to PSG and Sleep Profiler for total sleep time (-1.4 min), light sleep (-9.6 min), and deep sleep (-9.3 min) but showed the largest disagreement for rapid eye movement (REM) sleep (21.0 min). Fitbit Charge 4 and Garmin Vivosmart 4 both showed moderate accuracy in assessing sleep stages and total sleep time compared to PSG. Fitbit Charge 4 showed the least disagreement for REM sleep (4.0 min) relative to PSG. Additionally, Fitbit Charge 4 showed higher sensitivities to deep sleep (75%) and REM sleep (86.5%) compared to Garmin Vivosmart 4 and WHOOP.ConclusionsThe findings of this systematic literature review indicate that the devices with higher relative agreement and sensitivities to multistate sleep (ie, Fitbit Charge 4 and WHOOP) seem appropriate for deriving suitable estimates of sleep parameters. However, analyses regarding the multistate categorization of sleep indicate that all devices can benefit from further improvement in the assessment of specific sleep stages. Although providers are continuously developing new versions and variants of wearables, the scientific research on these wearables remains considerably limited. This scarcity in literature not only reduces our ability to draw definitive conclusions but also highlights the need for more targeted research in this domain. Additionally, future research endeavors should strive for standardized protocols including larger sample sizes to enhance the comparability and power of the results across studies.

Project description:BackgroundGreater awareness of sleep-disordered breathing and rising obesity rates have fueled demand for sleep studies. Sleep testing using level 3 portable devices may expedite diagnosis and reduce the costs associated with level 1 in-laboratory polysomnography. We sought to assess the diagnostic accuracy of level 3 testing compared with level 1 testing and to identify the appropriate patient population for each test.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies of level 3 versus level 1 sleep tests in adults with suspected sleep-disordered breathing. We searched 3 research databases and grey literature sources for studies that reported on diagnostic accuracy parameters or disease management after diagnosis. Two reviewers screened the search results, selected potentially relevant studies and extracted data. We used a bivariate mixed-effects binary regression model to estimate summary diagnostic accuracy parameters.ResultsWe included 59 studies involving a total of 5026 evaluable patients (mostly patients suspected of having obstructive sleep apnea). Of these, 19 studies were included in the meta-analysis. The estimated area under the receiver operating characteristics curve was high, ranging between 0.85 and 0.99 across different levels of disease severity. Summary sensitivity ranged between 0.79 and 0.97, and summary specificity ranged between 0.60 and 0.93 across different apnea-hypopnea cut-offs. We saw no significant difference in the clinical management parameters between patients who underwent either test to receive their diagnosis.InterpretationLevel 3 portable devices showed good diagnostic performance compared with level 1 sleep tests in adult patients with a high pretest probability of moderate to severe obstructive sleep apnea and no unstable comorbidities. For patients suspected of having other types of sleep-disordered breathing or sleep disorders not related to breathing, level 1 testing remains the reference standard.

Dataset Information

Accuracy of Wristband Fitbit Models in Assessing Sleep: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets