Consumer-grade smartwatches accurately measured heart rate at rest and recovery (MAPE ≤ 3%), and Garmin measured step count more accurately than Fitbit (MAPE 1.8% vs 8.0%).
Cross-Sectional (n=16)
Device allocation to left/right wrist was randomized
No
Do consumer-grade smartwatches accurately measure physiological responses during submaximal exercise tests compared to reference standards in healthy adults?
Consumer-grade smartwatches can accurately measure heart rate and step counts during standardized exercise tests, though distance accuracy varies by protocol.
Absolute Event Rate: 1.8% vs 8%
p-value: p=<0.001
Exercise capacity is a strong independent predictor of cardiovascular and all-cause mortality. The utilization of well-established submaximal tests of exercise capacity such as the 6-min walk test (6MWT), 3-min step test (3MST) and 10-chair rise test (10CRT) in the community would improve patient care but requires remote monitoring technology. Consumer grade smartwatches provide such an opportunity, however, their accuracy in measuring physiological responses to these tests is unclear. The aim of this study was to determine the accuracy of consumer grade smartwatches in assessing exercise capacity to develop a framework for remote, unsupervised testing. 16 healthy adults (7 male (44%), age median 27 interquartile range (IQR) 26,29 years) performed 6MWTs using two protocols: (1) standard-straight 30 m laps (6MWT-standard) and 2) continuous lap-circular 240 m laps around a park (6MWT-continuous lap), 3MSTs and 10CRTs. Each one of these four tests was performed three times across two clinic visits. Each participant was fitted with a Garmin Vivoactive4 and Fitbit Sense smartwatch to measure three parameters: distance, step counts and heart rate (HR) response. Reference measures were a meter-wheel, hand tally counter and ECG, respectively. Mean HR was measured at rest, peak exercise and recovery. Agreement was measured using Bland-Altman analysis for repeated measures and summarized as median absolute percentage errors (MAPE). Distance during 6MWT-continuous lap had better agreement than during 6MWT-standard for both Garmin (MAPE: 6.4% 3.0, 10.4% versus 20.1% 13.9, 28.4%, p < 0.001) and Fitbit (8.0% 2.9, 10.1% versus 18.8% [15.2, 28.1%, p < 0.001). Garmin measured step count more accurately than Fitbit (MAPE: 1.8% 0.9, 2.9% versus 8.0% 2.6, 12.3%, p < 0.001). Irrespective of test, both devices showed excellent accuracy in measuring HR at rest and recovery (≤ 3%), while accuracy decreased during peak exercise (Fitbit: ~ 12% and Garmin: ~ 7%). In young adults without mobility difficulties, exercise capacity can be measured remotely using standardized tests and consumer grade smartwatches.
Jamieson et al. (Thu,) conducted a cross-sectional in Healthy adults (n=16). Consumer-grade smartwatches (Garmin Vivoactive4 and Fitbit Sense) vs. Reference measures (meter-wheel, hand tally counter, ECG) was evaluated on Median absolute percentage error (MAPE) for step count (Garmin vs Fitbit) (p=<0.001). Consumer-grade smartwatches accurately measured heart rate at rest and recovery (MAPE ≤ 3%), and Garmin measured step count more accurately than Fitbit (MAPE 1.8% vs 8.0%).