Dataset Information

Review of Validity and Reliability of Garmin Activity Trackers.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

A systematic review to summarize the validity and reliability of steps, distance, energy expenditure, speed, elevation, heart rate, and sleep assessed by Garmin activity trackers.

Methods

Searches included studies published through December 31, 2018. Correlation coefficients (CC) were assessed as low (<0.60), moderate (0.60-<0.75), good (0.75-<0.90), or excellent (>=0.90). Mean absolute percentage errors (MAPE) were assessed as acceptable at <5% in controlled conditions and <10% for free-living.

Results

Overall, 32 studies of adults documented validity. Four of these studies also documented reliability. The sample size ranged from 1 to 95 for validity and 4 to 31 for reliability testing. Step inter- and intra-reliability was good-to-excellent and speed intra-reliability was excellent. No other features were explored for reliability. Step validity, across 16 studies, generally indicated good-to-excellent CC and acceptable MAPE. Distance validity, tested in three studies, generally indicated poor CC and MAPE that exceeded acceptable limits, with both over and underestimation. Energy expenditure validity, across 12 studies, generally indicated wide variability in CC and MAPE that exceeded acceptable limits. Heart rate validity in five studies had low-to-excellent CC and all MAPE exceeded acceptable limits. Speed, elevation, and sleep validity were assessed in only one or two studies each; for sleep, the criterion relied on self-report rather than polysomnography.

Conclusion

This systematic review of Garmin activity trackers among adults indicated higher validity of steps; few studies on speed, elevation, and sleep; and lower validity for distance, energy expenditure, and heart rate. Intra- and inter-device feature reliability needs further testing.

SUBMITTER: Evenson KR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7323940 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionThe use of activity trackers has increased both among private consumers and in healthcare. It is therefore relevant to consider whether a consumer-graded activity tracker is comparable to or may substitute a research-graded activity tracker, which could further increase the use of activity trackers in healthcare and rehabilitation. Such use will require knowledge of their accuracy as the clinical implications may be significant. Studies have indicated that activity trackers are not sufficiently accurate, especially at lower walking speeds. The present study seeks to inform decision makers and healthcare personnel considering implementing physical activity trackers in clinical practice. This study investigates the criterion validity of the consumer-graded Garmin Vivosmart® HR and the research-graded StepWatch™ 3 compared with manual step count (gold standard) at different walking speeds under controlled conditions.MethodsThirty participants, wearing Garmin Vivosmart® HR at the wrist and StepWatch™ 3 at the ankle, completed six trials on a treadmill at different walking speeds: 1.6 km/h, 2.4 km/h, 3.2 km/h, 4.0 km/h, 4.8 km/h, and 5.6 km/h. The participants were video recorded, and steps were registered by manual step count. Medians and inter-quartile ranges (IQR) were calculated for steps and differences in steps between manually counted steps and the two devices. In order to assess the clinical relevance of the tested devices, the mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) was determined at each speed. A MAPE ≤3% was considered to be clinically irrelevant. Furthermore, differences between manually counted steps and steps recorded by the two devices were presented in Bland-Altman style plots.ResultsThe median of differences in steps between Garmin Vivosmart® HR and manual step count ranged from -49.5 (IQR = 101) at 1.6 km/h to -1 (IQR = 4) at 4.0 km/h. The median of differences in steps between StepWatch™ 3 and manual step count were 4 (IQR = 14) at 1.6 km/h and 0 (IQR = 1) at all other walking speeds. The results of the MAPE showed that differences in steps counted by Garmin Vivosmart® HR were clinically irrelevant at walking speeds 3.2-4.8 km/h (MAPE: 0.61-1.27%) as the values were below 3%. Differences in steps counted by StepWatch™ 3 were clinically irrelevant at walking speeds 2.4-5.6 km/h (MAPE: 0.08-0.35%).ConclusionGarmin Vivosmart® HR tended to undercount steps compared with the manual step count, and StepWatch™ 3 slightly overcounted steps compared with the manual step count. Both the consumer-graded activity tracker (Garmin Vivosmart® HR) and the research-graded (StepWatch™ 3) are valid in detecting steps at selected walking speeds in healthy adults under controlled conditions. However, both activity trackers miscount steps at slow walking speeds, and the consumer graded activity tracker also miscounts steps at fast walking speeds.

Project description:BackgroundThe range of benefits associated with regular physical activity participation is irrefutable. Despite the well-known benefits, physical inactivity remains one of the major contributing factors to ill-health throughout industrialized countries. Traditional lifestyle interventions such as group education or telephone counseling are effective at increasing physical activity participation; however, physical activity levels tend to decline over time. Consumer-based wearable activity trackers that allow users to objectively monitor activity levels are now widely available and may offer an alternative method for assisting individuals to remain physically active.ObjectiveThis review aimed to determine the effects of interventions utilizing consumer-based wearable activity trackers on physical activity participation and sedentary behavior when compared with interventions that do not utilize activity tracker feedback.MethodsA systematic review was performed searching the following databases for studies that included the use of a consumer-based wearable activity tracker to improve physical activity participation: Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials, MEDLINE, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, SPORTDiscus, and Health Technology Assessments. Controlled trials of adults comparing the use of a consumer-based wearable activity tracker with other nonactivity tracker-based interventions were included. The main outcome measures were physical activity participation and sedentary behavior. All studies were assessed for risk of bias, and the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system was used to rank the quality of evidence. The guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement were followed. A random-effects meta-analysis was completed on the included outcome measures to estimate the treatment effect of interventions that included an activity tracker compared with a control group.ResultsThere was a significant increase in daily step count (standardized mean difference [SMD] 0.24; 95% CI 0.16 to 0.33; P<.001), moderate and vigorous physical activity (SMD 0.27; 95% CI 0.15 to 0.39; P<.001), and energy expenditure (SMD 0.28; 95% CI 0.03 to 0.54; P=.03) and a nonsignificant decrease in sedentary behavior (SMD -0.20; 95% CI -0.43 to 0.03; P=.08) following the intervention versus control comparator across all studies in the meta-analyses. In general, included studies were at low risk of bias, except for performance bias. Heterogeneity varied across the included meta-analyses ranging from low (I2=3%) for daily step count through to high (I2=67%) for sedentary behavior.ConclusionsUtilizing a consumer-based wearable activity tracker as either the primary component of an intervention or as part of a broader physical activity intervention has the potential to increase physical activity participation. As the effects of physical activity interventions are often short term, the inclusion of a consumer-based wearable activity tracker may provide an effective tool to assist health professionals to provide ongoing monitoring and support.

Project description:BackgroundThe associations between disease activity and several clinical signs in vitiligo have been described, but a widely accepted and validated scoring system is lacking.ObjectivesTo validate the Vitiligo Signs of Activity Score (VSAS) for physicians.MethodsThree visible clinical signs were scored on 15 body locations: confetti-like depigmentation (c), Koebner phenomenon (k) and hypochromic areas/borders (h). The inter- and intrarater reliability of the global VSAS and VSAS subscores (c-VSAS, k-VSAS and h-VSAS) were tested by four and three raters (physicians), respectively. Construct validity and feasibility were evaluated.ResultsThe VSAS demonstrated good inter-rater reliability, with an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0·87 in the first round and 0·90 in the second round. The intrarater reliability ICCs were all ≥ 0·86. The inter-rater reliabilities of the subscores were excellent for c-VSAS and fair for k-VSAS and h-VSAS (ICC 0·83, 0·51 and 0·53, respectively, in the first round). Evidence for construct validity was provided. The completion time by the raters (median 2·18 min per patient) improved during the second round (median 1·33 min per patient). A limitation of the study is the low number of patients, mainly of skin phototypes II-III, from a single tertiary centre.ConclusionsThe VSAS appears to be a valid and reliable instrument to score visible clinical signs linked to disease activity in a standardized way. What is already known about this topic? Evidence exists for a possible link between several visible clinical signs in vitiligo and disease activity. A widely accepted and validated scoring system to quantify these clinical signs is lacking. What does this study add? The Vitiligo Signs of Activity Score (VSAS) underwent preliminary validation and may assist quantification of visible clinical signs linked to disease activity in a standardized way in clinical practice and trials. What are the clinical implications of this work? VSAS may be used for future trials that aim to establish the clinical significance of the specific visible clinical signs in vitiligo in a more controlled setting. Linked Comment: Eleftheriadou. Br J Dermatol 2020; 183:801-802.

Project description:BackgroundAccurate and fast measurement of physical activity is important for surveillance. Even though many physical activity questionnaires (PAQ) are currently used in research, it is unclear which of them is the most reliable, valid, and easy to use. This systematic review aimed to identify existing brief PAQs, describe and compare their measurement properties, and assess their level of readability.MethodsWe performed a systematic review based on the PRISMA statement. Literature searches were conducted in six scientific databases. Articles were included if they evaluated validity and/or reliability of brief (i.e., with a maximum of three questions) physical activity or exercise questionnaires intended for healthy adults. Due to the heterogeneity of studies, data were summarized narratively. The level of readability was calculated according to the Flesch-Kincaid formula.ResultsIn total, 35 articles published in English or Spanish were included, evaluating 32 distinct brief PAQs. The studies indicated moderate to good levels of reliability for the PAQs. However, the majority of results showed weak validity when validated against device-based measurements and demonstrated weak to moderate validity when validated against other PAQs. Most of the assessed PAQs met the criterion of being "short," allowing respondents to complete them in less than one minute either by themselves or with an interviewer. However, only 17 questionnaires had a readability level that indicates that the PAQ is easy to understand for the majority of the population.ConclusionsThis review identified a variety of brief PAQs, but most of them were evaluated in only a single study. Validity and reliability of short and long questionnaires are found to be at a comparable level, short PAQs can be recommended for use in surveillance systems. However, the methods used to assess measurement properties varied widely across studies, limiting the comparability between different PAQs and making it challenging to identify a single tool as the most suitable. None of the evaluated brief PAQs allowed for the measurement of whether a person fulfills current WHO physical activity guidelines. Future development or adaptation of PAQs should prioritize readability as an important factor to enhance their usability.

Project description:Measuring physical activity (PA) and sedentary time (ST) in young children (<5 years) is complex. Objective measures have high validity but require specialist expertise, are expensive, and can be burdensome for participants. A proxy-report instrument for young children that accurately measures PA and ST is needed. The aim of this study was to assess the reliability and validity of the Early Years Physical Activity Questionnaire (EY-PAQ). In a setting where English and Urdu are the predominant languages spoken by parents of young children, a sample of 196 parents and their young children (mean age 3.2 ± 0.8 years) from Bradford, UK took part in the study. A total of 156 (79.6%) questionnaires were completed in English and 40 (20.4%) were completed in transliterated Urdu. A total of 109 parents took part in the reliability aspect of the study, which involved completion of the EY-PAQ on two occasions (7.2 days apart; standard deviation (SD) = 1.1). All 196 participants took part in the validity aspect which involved comparison of EY-PAQ scores against accelerometry. Validty anaylsis used all data and data falling with specific MVPA and ST boundaries. Reliability was assessed using intra-class correlations (ICC) and validity by Bland⁻Altman plots and rank correlation coefficients. The test re-test reliability of the EY-PAQ was moderate for ST (ICC = 0.47) and fair for moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA)(ICC = 0.35). The EY-PAQ had poor agreement with accelerometer-determined ST (mean difference = -87.5 min·day-1) and good agreement for MVPA (mean difference = 7.1 min·day-1) limits of agreement were wide for all variables. The rank correlation coefficient was non-significant for ST (rho = 0.19) and significant for MVPA (rho = 0.30). The EY-PAQ has comparable validity and reliability to other PA self-report tools and is a promising population-based measure of young children's habitual MVPA but not ST. In situations when objective methods are not possible for measurement of young children's MVPA, the EY-PAQ may be a suitable alternative but only if boundaries are applied.