A Systematic Review of Fitness Apps and Their Potential Clinical and Sports Utility for Objective and Remote Assessment of Cardiorespiratory Fitness
View Full Paper
Ask AI
Bookmark
Share
Key result
Few fitness apps have been empirically tested for validity or reliability, and commercial apps are generally of low-to-moderate quality, indicating their potential for assessing cardiorespiratory fitness has yet to be fully realized.
Why the study?
Cardiorespiratory fitness assessment has high clinical and sports utility, but further investigation was needed to evaluate the validity and reliability of existing fitness apps.
Are smartphone fitness apps valid and reliable for the objective and remote assessment of cardiorespiratory fitness compared to traditional criterion measures?
Comparison
Apps for assessing cardiorespiratory fitness vs scientific literature criteria or app market availability
Design
Systematic review
Authors
Discussion
Loading...
Member takes
Implication
Clinicians should avoid relying on unvalidated commercial apps for cardiorespiratory fitness; leaves open the need for targeted validation studies.
Study Design
Type
Systematic Review
Structured PICO
Are smartphone fitness apps valid and reliable for the objective and remote assessment of cardiorespiratory fitness compared to traditional criterion measures?
P
Population
A systematic review of 5 scientific studies and 88 commercial fitness apps evaluating the validity, reliability, and quality of smartphone applications for assessing cardiorespiratory fitness.
I
Intervention
Smartphone fitness applications for assessing cardiorespiratory fitness (e.g., HRV4Training, InterWalk, SA-6MWTapp, 2-6MWT, TOHRC Walk Test).
C
Comparator
Criterion measures/gold standards such as cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPX), indirect calorimetry, pre-measured in-clinic distance, and digital video recordings.
O
Outcome
Validity (correlation with criterion measures) and reliability (test-retest ICC) of apps for assessing cardiorespiratory fitness.surrogate
Few fitness apps have been empirically tested for cardiorespiratory fitness assessment, and commercial apps are generally of low-to-moderate quality, highlighting the need for further rigorous validation before widespread clinical or sports use.
Limitations
- Limited number of scientific studies identified in the literature.
- Low-to-moderate quality of commercial apps.
- Small sample sizes in the included validation studies.
- Algorithms based on specific smartphone accelerometers may lack generalizability to other devices.
- Levels of evidence based on scientific validity/reliability of apps could not be robustly determined due to the limited number of studies identified
- Low-to-moderate quality of commercial apps
- High risk of bias in three of the five included scientific studies
Cite This Study
Muntaner‐Mas et al. (2019) conducted a systematic review in Cardiorespiratory fitness. Fitness apps vs. Criterion measures (traditional CRF assessment methods) was evaluated on Validity and reliability of fitness apps for assessing cardiorespiratory fitness. Few fitness apps have been empirically tested for validity or reliability, and commercial apps are generally of low-to-moderate quality, indicating their potential for assessing cardiorespiratory fitness has yet to be fully realized.
View Full Paper
Ask AI
Bookmark
Share