![]() ![]() Using several different comparison measures (indirect and direct calorimetry, accelerometry, self-report), energy expenditure was more often under-estimated by either tracker. Two field-based studies compared accelerometry-assessed physical activity to the trackers, with one study finding higher correlation (Spearman CC 0.86, Fitbit) while another study found a wide range in correlation (intraclass CC 0.36–0.70, Fitbit and Jawbone). Only one study assessed distance for the Fitbit, finding an over-estimate at slower speeds and under-estimate at faster speeds. For laboratory-based studies using step counting or accelerometer steps, the correlation with tracker-assessed steps was high for both Fitbit and Jawbone (Pearson or intraclass correlation coefficients (CC) > =0.80). In total, 22 studies were included in the review (20 on adults, 2 on youth). Two people reviewed and abstracted each included study. ![]() Searches included only full-length English language studies published in PubMed, Embase, SPORTDiscus, and Google Scholar through July 31, 2015. The purpose of this systematic review was to summarize the evidence for validity and reliability of popular consumer-wearable activity trackers (Fitbit and Jawbone) and their ability to estimate steps, distance, physical activity, energy expenditure, and sleep. Consumer-wearable activity trackers are electronic devices used for monitoring fitness- and other health-related metrics.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |