Dataset Information

Validation of the Withings ScanWatch as a Wrist-Worn Reflective Pulse Oximeter: Prospective Interventional Clinical Study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

A decrease in the level of pulse oxygen saturation as measured by pulse oximetry (SpO₂) is an indicator of hypoxemia that may occur in various respiratory diseases, such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), sleep apnea syndrome, and COVID-19. Currently, no mass-market wrist-worn SpO₂ monitor meets the medical standards for pulse oximeters.

Objective

The main objective of this monocentric and prospective clinical study with single-blind analysis was to test and validate the accuracy of the reflective pulse oximeter function of the Withings ScanWatch to measure SpO₂ levels at different stages of hypoxia. The secondary objective was to confirm the safety of this device when used as intended.

Methods

To achieve these objectives, we included 14 healthy participants aged 23-39 years in the study, and we induced several stable plateaus of arterial oxygen saturation (SaO₂) ranging from 100%-70% to mimic nonhypoxic conditions and then mild, moderate, and severe hypoxic conditions. We measured the SpO₂ level with a Withings ScanWatch on each participant's wrist and the SaO₂ from blood samples with a co-oximeter, the ABL90 hemoximeter (Radiometer Medical ApS).

Results

After removal of the inconclusive measurements, we obtained 275 and 244 conclusive measurements with the two ScanWatches on the participants' right and left wrists, respectively, evenly distributed among the 3 predetermined SpO₂ groups: SpO₂≤80%, 80%2≤90%, and 90%2. We found a strong association and a high level of agreement between the measurements collected from the devices, with high Pearson correlation coefficients of r=0.944 and r=0.954 on the correlation plots, low Pearson correlation coefficients of r=0.083 (P=.17) and r=0.23 (P=.001) on Bland-Altman plots, biases of 0.98% (95% CI 0.65-1.32) and 1.56% (95% CI 1.24-1.87), and root mean square errors of 2.97% and 3.00% from the participants' right and left hands, respectively.

Conclusions

In conclusion, the Withings ScanWatch is able to measure SpO₂ levels with adequate accuracy at a clinical grade. No undesirable effects or adverse events were reported during the study.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04380389; http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04380389.

SUBMITTER: Kirszenblat R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8078374 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Wrist-worn activity trackers are popular, and an increasing number of these devices are equipped with heart rate (HR) measurement capabilities. However, the validity of HR data obtained from such trackers has not been thoroughly assessed outside the laboratory setting. OBJECTIVE:This study aimed to investigate the validity of HR measures of a high-cost consumer-based tracker (Polar A370) and a low-cost tracker (Tempo HR) in the laboratory and free-living settings. METHODS:Participants underwent a laboratory-based cycling protocol while wearing the two trackers and the chest-strapped Polar H10, which acted as criterion. Participants also wore the devices throughout the waking hours of the following day during which they were required to conduct at least one 10-min bout of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) to ensure variability in the HR signal. We extracted 10-second values from all devices and time-matched HR data from the trackers with those from the Polar H10. We calculated intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), mean absolute errors, and mean absolute percentage errors (MAPEs) between the criterion and the trackers. We constructed decile plots that compared HR data from Tempo HR and Polar A370 with criterion measures across intensity deciles. We investigated how many HR data points within the MVPA zone (?64% of maximum HR) were detected by the trackers. RESULTS:Of the 57 people screened, 55 joined the study (mean age 30.5 [SD 9.8] years). Tempo HR showed moderate agreement and large errors (laboratory: ICC 0.51 and MAPE 13.00%; free-living: ICC 0.71 and MAPE 10.20%). Polar A370 showed moderate-to-strong agreement and small errors (laboratory: ICC 0.73 and MAPE 6.40%; free-living: ICC 0.83 and MAPE 7.10%). Decile plots indicated increasing differences between Tempo HR and the criterion as HRs increased. Such trend was less pronounced when considering the Polar A370 HR data. Tempo HR identified 62.13% (1872/3013) and 54.27% (5717/10,535) of all MVPA time points in the laboratory phase and free-living phase, respectively. Polar A370 detected 81.09% (2273/2803) and 83.55% (9323/11,158) of all MVPA time points in the laboratory phase and free-living phase, respectively. CONCLUSIONS:HR data from the examined wrist-worn trackers were reasonably accurate in both the settings, with the Polar A370 showing stronger agreement with the Polar H10 and smaller errors. Inaccuracies increased with increasing HRs; this was pronounced for Tempo HR.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Physical activity reduces the incidences of noncommunicable diseases, obesity, and mortality, but an inactive lifestyle is becoming increasingly common. Innovative approaches to monitor and promote physical activity are warranted. While individual monitoring of physical activity aids in the design of effective interventions to enhance physical activity, a basic prerequisite is that the monitoring devices exhibit high validity. OBJECTIVE:Our goal was to assess the validity of monitoring heart rate (HR) and energy expenditure (EE) while sitting or performing light-to-vigorous physical activity with 4 popular wrist-worn wearables (Apple Watch Series 4, Polar Vantage V, Garmin Fenix 5, and Fitbit Versa). METHODS:While wearing the 4 different wearables, 25 individuals performed 5 minutes each of sitting, walking, and running at different velocities (ie, 1.1 m/s, 1.9 m/s, 2.7 m/s, 3.6 m/s, and 4.1 m/s), as well as intermittent sprints. HR and EE were compared to common criterion measures: Polar-H7 chest belt for HR and indirect calorimetry for EE. RESULTS:While monitoring HR at different exercise intensities, the standardized typical errors of the estimates were 0.09-0.62, 0.13-0.88, 0.62-1.24, and 0.47-1.94 for the Apple Watch Series 4, Polar Vantage V, Garmin Fenix 5, and Fitbit Versa, respectively. Depending on exercise intensity, the corresponding coefficients of variation were 0.9%-4.3%, 2.2%-6.7%, 2.9%-9.2%, and 4.1%-19.1%, respectively, for the 4 wearables. While monitoring EE at different exercise intensities, the standardized typical errors of the estimates were 0.34-1.84, 0.32-1.33, 0.46-4.86, and 0.41-1.65 for the Apple Watch Series 4, Polar Vantage V, Garmin Fenix 5, and Fitbit Versa, respectively. Depending on exercise intensity, the corresponding coefficients of variation were 13.5%-27.1%, 16.3%-28.0%, 15.9%-34.5%, and 8.0%-32.3%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS:The Apple Watch Series 4 provides the highest validity (ie, smallest error rates) when measuring HR while sitting or performing light-to-vigorous physical activity, followed by the Polar Vantage V, Garmin Fenix 5, and Fitbit Versa, in that order. The Apple Watch Series 4 and Polar Vantage V are suitable for valid HR measurements at the intensities tested, but HR data provided by the Garmin Fenix 5 and Fitbit Versa should be interpreted with caution due to higher error rates at certain intensities. None of the 4 wrist-worn wearables should be employed to monitor EE at the intensities and durations tested.