Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
INTRODUCTION: Activity trackers are useful tools for physical rehabilitation purposes. Most available activity trackers are designed for fitness and wellness use, lacking in both accuracy and precision at lower speeds. Validity and reliability at all clinically relevant speeds are crucial selection criteria for use in clinical practice. The aim of this study was to assess the validity and reliability of four consumer-based activity trackers at clinical relevant walking speeds for patient groups undergoing rehabilitation. METHODS: The four commercial activity trackers Fitbit Surge (FS), Fitbit Charge HR (FC), Microsoft Band 2 (MB), and A&D 101NFC Activity Monitor (A&D) were evaluated at 2, 4, 4.5, and 5.5 km/h. Twenty healthy participants aged 25.6 ± 2 years walked on a treadmill at the four velocities in two trials of 100 steps each. Mean average percentage error (MAPE), intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), and Bland-Altman 95% limits of agreement were calculated to assess validity and reliability. RESULTS: MAPE levels were between -8% and -6% for FS, -15% and 0% for MB, 7% and 21% for FC, and -53% and 1% for AD. The biggest inaccuracies were seen at 2 km/h, where AD underestimated by 53%. The highest accuracy was predominantly found with MB and AD, which overestimated ≤2% at velocities ≥4 km/h. ICC was moderate (0.73) for FS, good (0.88) for MB, moderate (0.52) for FC, and excellent (0.98) for AD. CONCLUSIONS: MB, FS, and AD accurately counted steps, when participants walked with velocities corresponding to a brisk walk (≥4 km/h). Walking at lower speeds (≤2 km/h) was not counted accurately. Thus, the four evaluated activity trackers are not useful for patient groups walking at lower speeds during rehabilitation, nor for counting indoor walking.
Tophøj et al. (Fri,) studied this question.