Accuracy in Wrist-Worn, Sensor-Based Measurements of Heart Rate and Energy Expenditure in a Diverse Cohort
Why the study?
Do commercially available wrist-worn devices accurately estimate heart rate and energy expenditure compared to continuous telemetry and indirect calorimetry in healthy volunteers?
Population
60 volunteers of diverse age, height, weight, skin tone, and fitness level
Comparison
Seven commercially available wrist-worn devices… vs Simultaneous assessment with continuous…
Design
Cross-sectional
Authors
Discussion
Loading...
Member takes
Implication
Caution warranted for energy expenditure estimates from wrist-worn devices in programs; leaves open real-world validation in clinical populations.
Structured PICO
Do commercially available wrist-worn devices accurately estimate heart rate and energy expenditure compared to continuous telemetry and indirect calorimetry in healthy volunteers?
P
Population
60 volunteers of diverse age, height, weight, skin tone, and fitness level (mean age 38 ± 11 years, 29 male, 31 female)
I
Intervention
Seven commercially available wrist-worn devices (Apple Watch, Basis Peak, Fitbit Surge, Microsoft Band, Mio Alpha 2, PulseOn, and Samsung Gear S2) worn during sitting, walking, running, and cycling
C
Comparator
Simultaneous assessment with continuous telemetry (for heart rate) and indirect calorimetry (for energy expenditure)
O
Outcome
Error in heart rate (HR) and energy expenditure (EE) computed for each subject/device/activity combinationsurrogate
Most wrist-worn devices adequately measure heart rate in laboratory settings but poorly estimate energy expenditure, indicating caution for their use in health improvement programs.
Cite This Study
Shcherbina et al. (2017) studied this question.