Cited by 64Non-Invasive Vital Sign MonitoringPhysical Activity and HealthMobile Health and mHealth Applications

Evaluation of Commercial Self-Monitoring Devices for Clinical Purposes: Results from the Future Patient Trial, Phase I

Open access
Leth, Soren, Hansen, John, Nielsen, Olav, Dinesen, Birthe·2017·Sensors

Abstract

Commercial self-monitoring devices are becoming increasingly popular, and over the last decade, the use of self-monitoring technology has spread widely in both consumer and medical markets. The purpose of this study was to evaluate five commercially available self-monitoring devices for further testing in clinical applications. Four activity trackers and one sleep tracker were evaluated based on step count validity and heart rate validity. Methods: The study enrolled 22 healthy volunteers in a walking test. Volunteers walked a 100 m track at 2 km/h and 3.5 km/h. Steps were measured by four activity trackers and compared to gyroscope readings. Two trackers were also tested on nine subjects by comparing pulse readings to Holter monitoring. Results: The lowest average systematic error in the walking tests was −0.2%, recorded on the Garmin Vivofit 2 at 3.5 km/h; the highest error was the Fitbit Charge HR at 2 km/h with an error margin of 26.8%. Comparisons of pulse measurements from the Fitbit Charge HR revealed a margin error of −3.42% ± 7.99% compared to the electrocardiogram. The Beddit sleep tracker measured a systematic error of −3.27% ± 4.60%. Conclusion: The measured results revealed the current functionality and limitations of the five self-tracking devices, and point towards a need for future research in this area.

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 · 10.3390/s17010211

Cites

28 of 28 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?

  • Step counts are most accurate at slow walking speeds.

    “Leth et al. demonstrated that step counts are most accurate at slow walking speeds [145].”

    From Wearables and the Medical Revolution (2018) · cites this paper as [145]

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
Leth, S., Hansen, J., Nielsen, O., & Dinesen, B.
Affiliations
  • Laboratory of Welfare Technologies—Telehealth & Telerehabilitation, SMI, Department of Health Science and Technology, Aalborg University, Aalborg 9100, Denmark
  • Aalborg University (DK)
  • Bispebjerg Hospital (DK)
Venue
Sensors
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2017-01-22
Volume
17
Issue
1
Pages
211
ISSN
1424-8220 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2581366853
Cited by
64
References
28
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 8
FWCI
6.03
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Sensors (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research at the University of Copenhagen (University of Copenhagen) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • VBN Forskningsportal (Aalborg Universitet) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Aalborg Universitet
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Non-Invasive Vital Sign Monitoring
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Physical Activity and Health
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
Keywords
self-monitoring devices, wearable activity trackers, sleep trackers, step count accuracy, heart rate monitoring, wearable sensors, Holter monitoring, walking test, electrocardiogram comparison
MeSH terms
Electrocardiography, Heart Rate, Humans, Monitoring, Physiologic, Sleep, Walking

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