Why the study?
To provide an overview of available activity monitors used in research in patients with heart failure and identify key criteria for selecting the most appropriate monitor.
Systematic Review
This position paper outlines key criteria for selecting activity monitors in heart failure research, recommending devices with raw data access and >1 week battery life for longitudinal studies.
Device selection in HF research must align with study aims and ensure validity for detecting change; extends prior guidance with explicit criteria for longitudinal monitoring.
The aims of this paper were to provide an overview of available activity monitors used in research in patients with heart failure and to identify the key criteria in the selection of the most appropriate activity monitor for collecting, reporting, and analysing physical activity in heart failure research. This study was conducted in three parts. First, the literature was systematically reviewed to identify physical activity concepts and activity monitors used in heart failure research. Second, an additional scoping literature search for validation of these activity monitors was conducted. Third, the most appropriate criteria in the selection of activity monitors were identified. Nine activity monitors were evaluated in terms of size, weight, placement, costs, data storage, water resistance, outcomes and validation, and cut-off points for physical activity intensity levels were discussed. The choice of a monitor should depend on the research aims, study population and design regarding physical activity. If the aim is to motivate patients to be active or set goals, a less rigorously tested tool can be considered. On the other hand, if the aim is to measure physical activity and its changes over time or following treatment adjustment, it is important to choose a valid activity monitor with a storage and battery longevity of at least one week. The device should provide raw data and valid cut-off points should be chosen for analysing physical activity intensity levels. Other considerations in choosing an activity monitor should include data storage location and ownership and the upfront costs of the device.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Klompstra et al. (2020) conducted a systematic review in Heart failure. Activity monitors was evaluated on Evaluation of activity monitors (size, weight, placement, costs, data storage, water resistance, outcomes, and validation). Nine activity monitors were evaluated for heart failure research, highlighting that device selection should depend on research aims, with valid monitors required for measuring changes over time.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: