Key result
The Fitbit Charge HR demonstrated excellent inter-instrument reliability for heart rate compared with the Zephyr BioHarness at rest (ICC ≥ 0.97), during exercise (ICC ≥ 0.89), and in recovery.
Why the study?
The inter-instrument reliability and agreement parameters of the Fitbit Charge Heart Rate device during rest, exercise, and recovery needed to be determined.
Does the Fitbit Charge HR provide reliable measurements of heart rate and activity compared to reference devices during rest, exercise, and recovery?
Cross-Sectional (n=60)
Does the Fitbit Charge HR provide reliable measurements of heart rate and activity compared to reference devices during rest, exercise, and recovery?
Effect estimate: ICC ≥ 0.97
The Fitbit Charge HR demonstrates excellent inter-instrument reliability and good agreement for heart rate, steps, and energy expenditure compared to reference devices across rest, exercise, and recovery phases.
Supports Fitbit Charge HR for reliable HR monitoring in controlled settings; extends validation data but leaves clinical adoption open.
Purpose: We determined the inter-instrument reliability and agreement parameters of the Fitbit Charge Heart Rate (Charge HR) device during three phases: rest, modified Canadian Aerobic Fitness Test (mCAFT), and recovery. Method: We recruited 60 participants for this cross-sectional measurement study using convenience and snowball sampling approaches. The performance of the Charge HR was assessed throughout the rest, mCAFT, and recovery phases. To establish inter-instrument reliability, the Charge HR variables – heart rate, steps taken, and energy expenditures – were compared with those for two other devices: the Zephyr BioHarness (ZB) for heart rate and the Fitbit One for steps taken and energy expenditure. Measurements were recorded every 30 seconds. Results: At rest, the inter-instrument intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) (standard error of measurement [SEM]) for the Charge HR versus the ZB was ≥ 0.97 (range, min–max, 1.02–1.32). During the mCAFT and in recovery, the ICCs (SEMs) for the Charge HR and the ZB were ≥ 0.89 (range, min–max, 1.30–3.98) and ≥ 0.68 (range, min–max, 3.58–8.35), respectively. During the mCAFT only, the number of steps taken and the energy expenditure recorded by the Charge HR and the Fitbit One displayed ICCs (SEMs) of 0.97 (83.00) and 0.77 (14.70), respectively. The average agreement differences in heart rate in this pair-wise device comparison indicated mean differences of –0.20, 4.00, and 1.00 beats per minute at rest, during the mCAFT, and in recovery, respectively. Conclusions: The Charge HR heart rate variable demonstrated excellent inter-instrument reliability compared with the ZB and provided good levels of agreement. The steps taken and energy expenditure variables displayed excellent reliability measures between Charge HR and Fitbit One. Our findings may be used to capture field-based wireless measures of heart rate in various phases and provide information about possibly using the Charge HR and ZB devices interchangeably.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nazari et al. (2019) reported a cross-sectional. Fitbit Charge HR vs. Zephyr BioHarness and Fitbit One was evaluated on Inter-instrument reliability (ICC) of heart rate at rest (ICC ≥ 0.97). The Fitbit Charge HR demonstrated excellent inter-instrument reliability for heart rate compared with the Zephyr BioHarness at rest (ICC ≥ 0.97), during exercise (ICC ≥ 0.89), and in recovery.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: