Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2022 Jan 21;24(1):e30791.
doi: 10.2196/30791.

Accuracy and Acceptability of Wrist-Wearable Activity-Tracking Devices: Systematic Review of the Literature

Federico Germini  1   2 , Noella Noronha  1   3 , Victoria Borg Debono  1 , Binu Abraham Philip  1 , Drashti Pete  1 , Tamara Navarro  1 , Arun Keepanasseril  1   2 , Sameer Parpia  1   4 , Kerstin de Wit  1   5 , Alfonso Iorio  1   2
Affiliations
Review

Accuracy and Acceptability of Wrist-Wearable Activity-Tracking Devices: Systematic Review of the Literature

Federico Germini et al. J Med Internet Res. .

Abstract

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) <25% across 20 studies. For heart rate, the Apple Watch had a MAPE <10% in 2 studies. For energy expenditure, the MAPE was >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.

Keywords: diagnosis; measurement; mobile phone; wrist-wearable devices.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: None declared.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) 2009 study flow diagram.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Summary of the results for the main accuracy outcomes. MAPE: mean absolute percentage error.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Seifert A, Schlomann A, Rietz C, Schelling HR. The use of mobile devices for physical activity tracking in older adults' everyday life. Digit Health. 2017 Nov 09;3:2055207617740088. doi: 10.1177/2055207617740088. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2055207617740088?url_ver=Z39.88... 10.1177_2055207617740088 - DOI - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Ainsworth BE. How do I measure physical activity in my patients? Questionnaires and objective methods. Br J Sports Med. 2009 Jan;43(1):6–9. doi: 10.1136/bjsm.2008.052449.bjsm.2008.052449 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Rütten A, Ziemainz H, Schena F, Stahl T, Stiggelbout M, Auweele YV, Vuillemin A, Welshman J. Using different physical activity measurements in eight European countries. Results of the European Physical Activity Surveillance System (EUPASS) time series survey. Public Health Nutr. 2003 Jun;6(4):371–6. doi: 10.1079/PHN2002450. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Rothwell PM. Analysis of agreement between measurements of continuous variables: general principles and lessons from studies of imaging of carotid stenosis. J Neurol. 2000 Nov;247(11):825–34. doi: 10.1007/s004150070068. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Ranganathan P, Pramesh CS, Aggarwal R. Common pitfalls in statistical analysis: measures of agreement. Perspect Clin Res. 2017;8(4):187–91. doi: 10.4103/picr.PICR_123_17. http://www.picronline.org/article.asp?issn=2229-3485;year=2017;volume=8;... PCR-8-187 - DOI - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources

  NODES
INTERN 5
twitter 2