Systematic review of the validity and reliability of consumer-wearable activity trackers.
Systematic review of the validity and reliability of consumer-wearable activity trackers.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1186/s12966-015-0314-1
复制
发表时间：
2015-12-18
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Furberg RD
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Evenson KR;Goto MM;Furberg RD
消费者可穿戴活动跟踪器是用于监测健身和其他健康相关指标的电子设备。这项系统性综述的目的是总结流行的消费者可穿戴活动跟踪器（Fitbit和Jawbone）的有效性和可靠性的证据，以及它们估计步数、距离、体力活动、能量消耗和睡眠的能力。检索仅包括截至2015年7月31日发表在PubMed、Embase、SPORTDiscus和Google Scholar上的完整英语语言研究。两人对每项纳入研究进行了审查和摘要。总共有22项研究被纳入综述（20项成人研究，2项青年研究）。对于使用步数或加速度计步数的基于实验室的研究，Fitbit和Jawbone与追踪器评估步数的相关性都很高（Pearson或组内相关系数（CC）> =0.80）。只有一项研究评估了Fitbit的距离，发现在较慢的速度下高估了距离，而在较快的速度下低估了距离。两项基于现场的研究将加速度计评估的身体活动与跟踪器进行了比较，其中一项研究发现了更高的相关性（斯皮尔曼CC 0.86，Fitbit），而另一项研究发现了广泛的相关性（类内CC 0.36-0.70，Fitbit和Jawbone）。使用几种不同的比较措施（间接和直接测热法，加速度计，自我报告），能量消耗更经常低估任何跟踪。总睡眠时间和睡眠效率被高估，而睡眠开始后的觉醒被低估，比较多导睡眠图与使用正常模式设置的任一跟踪器的指标。没有发现器械内可靠性的研究。7项使用Fitbit的研究报告了器械间可靠性，但没有关于Jawbone的研究。基于步行和跑步的Fitbit试验表明，对于步数（Pearson和组内CC 0.76-1.00）、距离（组内CC 0.90-0.99）和能量消耗（Pearson和组内CC 0.71-0.97），器械间可靠性始终很高。当睡觉时佩戴两个Fitbit时，设备之间的一致性很高。这项系统性综述表明，步骤的有效性较高，距离和体力活动的研究很少，能量消耗和睡眠的有效性较低。审查的证据表明，某些Fitbit型号的步数、距离、能量消耗和睡眠具有较高的设备间可靠性。随着新的活动跟踪器和功能被引入市场，测量属性的文档可以指导它们在研究环境中的使用。本文的在线版本（doi：10.1186/s12966-015-0314-1）包含补充材料，可供授权用户使用。
Consumer-wearable activity trackers are electronic devices used for monitoring fitness- and other health-related metrics. 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. Searches included only full-length English language studies published in PubMed, Embase, SPORTDiscus, and Google Scholar through July 31, 2015. Two people reviewed and abstracted each included study. In total, 22 studies were included in the review (20 on adults, 2 on youth). 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). Only one study assessed distance for the Fitbit, finding an over-estimate at slower speeds and under-estimate at faster speeds. 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). Using several different comparison measures (indirect and direct calorimetry, accelerometry, self-report), energy expenditure was more often under-estimated by either tracker. Total sleep time and sleep efficiency were over-estimated and wake after sleep onset was under-estimated comparing metrics from polysomnography to either tracker using a normal mode setting. No studies of intradevice reliability were found. Interdevice reliability was reported on seven studies using the Fitbit, but none for the Jawbone. Walking- and running-based Fitbit trials indicated consistently high interdevice reliability for steps (Pearson and intraclass CC 0.76–1.00), distance (intraclass CC 0.90–0.99), and energy expenditure (Pearson and intraclass CC 0.71–0.97). When wearing two Fitbits while sleeping, consistency between the devices was high. This systematic review indicated higher validity of steps, few studies on distance and physical activity, and lower validity for energy expenditure and sleep. The evidence reviewed indicated high interdevice reliability for steps, distance, energy expenditure, and sleep for certain Fitbit models. As new activity trackers and features are introduced to the market, documentation of the measurement properties can guide their use in research settings. The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12966-015-0314-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.