Validity of Consumer-Based Physical Activity Monitors
Validity of Consumer-Based Physical Activity Monitors
复制标题
DOI：
10.1249/mss.0000000000000287
复制
发表时间：
2014-09-01
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Welk, Gregory J.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Lee, Jung-Min;Kim, Youngwon;Welk, Gregory J.
背景：许多基于消费者的监测器被用于提供有关体力活动水平和每日能量消耗(EE)的个人信息，但很少或根本没有信息来证实其有效性。目的：本研究旨在检验在自由生活条件下，各种以消费者为基础的体力活动监测器估计EE的有效性。方法：60名(26.4+/-5.7岁)健康男性(n=30)和女性(n=30)同时佩戴8种不同类型的活动监测器，同时完成69分钟的程序。这些监控器包括戴在左臂上的BodyMedia Fit臂章、戴在脖子上的DirectLife监控器、Fitbit One、Fitbit Zip和佩戴在腰带上的Actigraph，以及戴在手腕上的Jawbone Up和Basis B1 Band监测器。相对于同时从便携式代谢系统(即，Oxycon Mobile)获得的标准值，评估来自每个监护仪的EE估计的有效性。与标准测量的差异以平均绝对百分比误差表示，并使用95%的等价性检验进行评估。结果：在总体比较中，BodyMedia Fit、Fitbit Zip、Fitbit One、Jawbone Up、Actigraph、DirectLife、NikeFuel Band和Basis B1 Band的平均绝对百分比误差值(以组水平误差的平均绝对值计算)分别为9.3%、10.1%、10.4%、12.2%、12.6%、12.8%、13.0%和23.5%。等效性测试的结果表明，BodyMedia Fit、Fitbit Zip和NikeFuel Band(90%可信区间=341.1-359.4)的估计值都在间接量热法估计值附近的10%等效区内。结论：协议的指标显然有利于BodyMedia Fit臂章，但Fitbit Zip也观察到了有希望的初步结果。
Background: Many consumer-based monitors are marketed to provide personal information on the levels of physical activity and daily energy expenditure (EE), but little or no information is available to substantiate their validity. Purpose: This study aimed to examine the validity of EE estimates from a variety of consumer-based, physical activity monitors under free-living conditions. Methods: Sixty (26.4 +/- 5.7 yr) healthy males (n = 30) and females (n = 30) wore eight different types of activity monitors simultaneously while completing a 69-min protocol. The monitors included the BodyMedia FIT armband worn on the left arm, the DirectLife monitor around the neck, the Fitbit One, the Fitbit Zip, and the ActiGraph worn on the belt, as well as the Jawbone Up and Basis B1 Band monitor on the wrist. The validity of the EE estimates from each monitor was evaluated relative to criterion values concurrently obtained from a portable metabolic system (i.e., Oxycon Mobile). Differences from criterion measures were expressed as a mean absolute percent error and were evaluated using 95% equivalence testing. Results: For overall group comparisons, the mean absolute percent error values (computed as the average absolute value of the group-level errors) were 9.3%, 10.1%, 10.4%, 12.2%, 12.6%, 12.8%, 13.0%, and 23.5% for the BodyMedia FIT, Fitbit Zip, Fitbit One, Jawbone Up, ActiGraph, DirectLife, NikeFuel Band, and Basis B1 Band, respectively. The results from the equivalence testing showed that the estimates from the BodyMedia FIT, Fitbit Zip, and NikeFuel Band (90% confidence interval = 341.1-359.4) were each within the 10% equivalence zone around the indirect calorimetry estimate. Conclusions: The indicators of the agreement clearly favored the BodyMedia FIT armband, but promising preliminary findings were also observed with the Fitbit Zip.