Cited by 53Physical Activity and HealthContext-Aware Activity Recognition SystemsMobile Health and mHealth Applications

Validity of six consumer-level activity monitors for measuring steps in patients with chronic heart failure

Open access
Vetrovsky, Tomas, Siranec, Michal, Marencakova, Jitka, Tufano, James J., Capek, Vaclav, Bunc, Vaclav, Belohlavek, Jan·2019·PLOS ONE

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Although numerous activity trackers have been validated in healthy populations, validation is lacking in chronic heart failure patients who normally walk at a slower pace, making it difficult for researchers and clinicians to implement activity monitors during physical activity interventions. METHODS: Six consumer-level activity monitors were validated in a 3-day field study in patients with chronic heart failure and healthy individuals under free living conditions. Furthermore, the same devices were evaluated in a lab-based study during treadmill walking at speeds of 2.4, 3.0, 3.6, and 4.2 km·h-1. Concordance correlation coefficients (CCC) were used to evaluate the agreement between the activity monitors and the criterion, and mean absolute percentage errors (MAPE) were calculated to assess differences between each device and the criterion (MAPE <10% was considered as a threshold for validity). RESULTS: In the field study of healthy individuals, all but one of the activity monitors showed a substantial correlation (CCC ≥0.95) with the criterion device and MAPE <10%. In patients with heart failure, the correlation of only two activity monitors (Garmin vívofit 3 and Withings Go) was classified as at least moderate (CCC ≥0.90) and none of the devices had MAPE <10%. In the lab-based study at speeds 4.2 and 3.6 km·h-1, all activity monitors showed substantial to almost perfect correlations (CCC ≥0.95) with the criterion and MAPE in the range 1%-3%. However, at slower speeds of 3.0 and 2.4 km·h-1, the accuracy of all devices substantially deteriorated: their correlation with the criterion decreased below 90% and their MAPE increased to 4-8% and 10-45%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Even though none of the tested activity monitors fall within arbitrary thresholds for validity, most of them perform reasonably well enough to be useful tools that clinicians can use to simply motivate chronic heart failure patients to walk more.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1371/journal.pone.0222569

Cites

48 of 48 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Vetrovsky, T., Siranec, M., Marencakova, J., Tufano, J. J., Capek, V., Bunc, V., & Belohlavek, J.
Affiliations
Charles University (CZ)
Venue
PLOS ONE
Published
2019-09-13
Volume
14
Issue
9
Pages
e0222569
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2972777558
Cited by
53
References
48
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 4
FWCI
3.09
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Charles University Grant Agency (GAUK 1302317)
  • Czech Health Research Council of the Ministry of Health of the Czech Republic (NV18-09-00146)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Physical Activity and Health
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Context-Aware Activity Recognition Systems
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
Keywords
wearable activity trackers, step counting, chronic heart failure, device validation, wearable sensors, physical activity measurement, physical activity interventions
MeSH terms
Fitness Trackers, Adult, Aged, Chronic Disease, Exercise Test, Female, Heart Failure, Humans, Male, Reproducibility of Results, Exercise, Walking, Monitoring, Ambulatory, Accelerometry

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review