Cited by 310Context-Aware Activity Recognition SystemsPhysical Activity and HealthMobile Health and mHealth Applications

Evaluating the Validity of Current Mainstream Wearable Devices in Fitness Tracking Under Various Physical Activities: Comparative Study

Open access
Xie, Junqing, Wen, Dong, Liang, Lizhong, Jia, Yuxi, Gao, Li, Lei, Jianbo·2018·JMIR mHealth and uHealth

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Wearable devices have attracted much attention from the market in recent years for their fitness monitoring and other health-related metrics; however, the accuracy of fitness tracking results still plays a major role in health promotion. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of a host of latest wearable devices in measuring fitness-related indicators under various seminatural activities. METHODS: A total of 44 healthy subjects were recruited, and each subject was asked to simultaneously wear 6 devices (Apple Watch 2, Samsung Gear S3, Jawbone Up3, Fitbit Surge, Huawei Talk Band B3, and Xiaomi Mi Band 2) and 2 smartphone apps (Dongdong and Ledongli) to measure five major health indicators (heart rate, number of steps, distance, energy consumption, and sleep duration) under various activity states (resting, walking, running, cycling, and sleeping), which were then compared with the gold standard (manual measurements of the heart rate, number of steps, distance, and sleep, and energy consumption through oxygen consumption) and calculated to determine their respective mean absolute percentage errors (MAPEs). RESULTS: Wearable devices had a rather high measurement accuracy with respect to heart rate, number of steps, distance, and sleep duration, with a MAPE of approximately 0.10, whereas poor measurement accuracy was observed for energy consumption (calories), indicated by a MAPE of up to 0.44. The measurements varied for the same indicator measured by different fitness trackers. The variation in measurement of the number of steps was the highest (Apple Watch 2: 0.42; Dongdong: 0.01), whereas it was the lowest for heart rate (Samsung Gear S3: 0.34; Xiaomi Mi Band 2: 0.12). Measurements differed insignificantly for the same indicator measured under different states of activity; the MAPE of distance and energy measurements were in the range of 0.08 to 0.17 and 0.41 to 0.48, respectively. Overall, the Samsung Gear S3 performed the best for the measurement of heart rate under the resting state (MAPE of 0.04), whereas Dongdong performed the best for the measurement of the number of steps under the walking state (MAPE of 0.01). Fitbit Surge performed the best for distance measurement under the cycling state (MAPE of 0.04), and Huawei Talk Band B3 performed the best for energy consumption measurement under the walking state (MAPE of 0.17). CONCLUSIONS: At present, mainstream devices are able to reliably measure heart rate, number of steps, distance, and sleep duration, which can be used as effective health evaluation indicators, but the measurement accuracy of energy consumption is still inadequate. Fitness trackers of different brands vary with regard to measurement of indicators and are all affected by the activity state, which indicates that manufacturers of fitness trackers need to improve their algorithms for different activity states.

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 · 10.2196/mhealth.9754

Cites

31 of 31 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?

  • Wearable and mobile sensor technologies can be useful tools in precision nutrition research and practice.

    “Wearable and mobile sensor technologies can be useful tools in precision nutrition research and practice”

    From Wearable Technology to Quantify the Nutritional Intake of Adults: Validation Study (2020) · cites this paper as [15]

    The Introduction describes wearable sensors as potentially useful for health monitoring, including measuring energy consumption. However, it does not discuss their use in precision nutrition research or practice, or establish the usefulness of mobile sensor technologies for that purpose. The Results (Calorie Accuracy for Different Devices) also report poor accuracy for energy-consumption measurements. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • A second study found that accuracy of heart rate measurement was highest during running.

    “a second study found that the accuracy of HR measurement was highest during running51”

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

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [3]Global Recommendations on Physical Activity for Health 2010 Geneva WHO Press, World Health Organization 26180873
  2. [11]Abedtash H Holden RJ Systematic review of the effectiveness of health-related behavioral interventions using portable activity sensing devices (PASDs) J Am Med Inform Assoc 2017 09 1 24 5 1002 13 10.1093/jamia/ocx006 28339620 2987476 28339620 PMC6259669 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Xie, J., Wen, D., Liang, L., Jia, Y., Gao, L., & Lei, J.
Affiliations
  • Peking University (CN)
  • Guangdong Medical College (CN)
  • Jilin University (CN)
Corresponding author
Lei, Jianbo
Venue
JMIR mHealth and uHealth
Published
2018-04-12
Volume
6
Issue
4
Pages
e94
ISSN
2291-5222 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2798041585
Cited by
310
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 17 · 2025: 31 · 2024: 38 · 2023: 36 · 2022: 35 · 2021: 63 · 2020: 55 · 2019: 27 · 2018: 8
FWCI
19.13
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • JMIR mhealth and uhealth (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)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Context-Aware Activity Recognition Systems
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Physical Activity and Health
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
Keywords
wearable activity trackers, heart rate monitoring, step counting, distance measurement, energy expenditure estimation, Apple Watch, mean absolute percentage error, oxygen consumption, mobile health apps

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