Cited by 287Context-Aware Activity Recognition SystemsMobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsPhysical Activity and Health

Are Currently Available Wearable Devices for Activity Tracking and Heart Rate Monitoring Accurate, Precise, and Medically Beneficial?

Open access
El-Amrawy, Fatema, Nounou, Mohamed Ismail·2015·Healthcare Informatics Research

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The new wave of wireless technologies, fitness trackers, and body sensor devices can have great impact on healthcare systems and the quality of life. However, there have not been enough studies to prove the accuracy and precision of these trackers. The objective of this study was to evaluate the accuracy, precision, and overall performance of seventeen wearable devices currently available compared with direct observation of step counts and heart rate monitoring. METHODS: Each participant in this study used three accelerometers at a time, running the three corresponding applications of each tracker on an Android or iOS device simultaneously. Each participant was instructed to walk 200, 500, and 1,000 steps. Each set was repeated 40 times. Data was recorded after each trial, and the mean step count, standard deviation, accuracy, and precision were estimated for each tracker. Heart rate was measured by all trackers (if applicable), which support heart rate monitoring, and compared to a positive control, the Onyx Vantage 9590 professional clinical pulse oximeter. RESULTS: The accuracy of the tested products ranged between 79.8% and 99.1%, while the coefficient of variation (precision) ranged between 4% and 17.5%. MisFit Shine showed the highest accuracy and precision (along with Qualcomm Toq), while Samsung Gear 2 showed the lowest accuracy, and Jawbone UP showed the lowest precision. However, Xiaomi Mi band showed the best package compared to its price. CONCLUSIONS: The accuracy and precision of the selected fitness trackers are reasonable and can indicate the average level of activity and thus average energy expenditure.

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 · 10.4258/hir.2015.21.4.315

Cites

14 of 14 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?

  • The accuracy and precision of wearable devices typically range from 92% to 99%.

    “The accuracy and precision of wearable devices typically range from 92% to 99% [110].”
  • Smartwatches such as the Apple Watch, Samsung Gear S2, and Pebble Watch have acceptable validity and reliability for measuring steps during overground walking.

    “Smartwatches such as the Apple Watch, Samsung Gear S2, and Pebble Watch are also reported to have acceptable validity and reliability, at least for measuring steps during overground walking [29].”
  • Other studies have used suboptimal reference methods, such as chest straps or pulse oximeters, which themselves have a degree of error varying between 0 and 40 bpm when compared to electrocardiograms.

    “other studies have used suboptimal reference methods, such as the chest straps45–47 or pulse oximeters48, which themselves have a degree of error (varying between 0 and 40 bpm when compared to ECGs44).”

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
El-Amrawy, F., & Nounou, M. I.
Affiliations
  • Department of Pharmaceutics, Faculty of Pharmacy, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt.
  • Alexandria University (EG)
Corresponding author
Nounou, Mohamed Ismail
Venue
Healthcare Informatics Research
Published
2015
Volume
21
Issue
4
Pages
315
ISSN
  • 2093-3681 (ISSN-L)
  • 2093-369X
OpenAlex
W2175170030
Cited by
287
References
14
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 28 · 2021: 37 · 2020: 30 · 2019: 43 · 2018: 39 · 2017: 28 · 2016: 15
FWCI
23.74
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Healthcare Informatics Research (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Alexandria University
Topics
  • 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
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Physical Activity and Health
Keywords
wearable devices, wearable activity trackers, activity monitoring, step count accuracy, heart rate monitoring, accelerometer, pulse oximeter, energy expenditure estimation

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