December 17, 2016Open Access
Accuracy in wrist-worn, sensor-based measurements of heart rate and energy expenditure in a diverse cohort
View Full Paper
Ask AI
Bookmark
Share
Key result
Commercial wrist devices track HR with ~5% error but poorly estimate energy expenditure.
- n=60
Why the study?
The accuracy of commercially available wrist-worn devices in measuring heart rate and energy expenditure is largely unknown.
Do commercially available wrist-worn devices accurately estimate heart rate and energy expenditure compared to continuous telemetry and indirect calorimetry in healthy volunteers?
Comparison
Seven wrist-worn devices vs continuous telemetry and indirect calorimetry
Design
Observational study with simultaneous device and reference measurements
Authors
Discussion
Loading...
Member takes
Implication
Most devices accurately measure HR but not EE in lab settings; leaves open clinical utility pending real-world validation.
Study Design
Type
Observational (n=60)
Multicenter
No
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 healthy adult volunteers of diverse age, height, weight, skin tone, and fitness level who underwent a standardized exercise protocol to validate wrist-worn devices.
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) 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.
Limitations
- Only tested devices and algorithms that were available at the time of the study.
- Laboratory validation does not reflect continuous real-time monitoring outside of the clinic.
Cite This Study
Shcherbina et al. (2016) conducted an observational in Healthy adult volunteers (n=60). Commercially available wrist-worn devices vs. Continuous telemetry (ECG) and indirect calorimetry was evaluated on Error in heart rate (HR) and energy expenditure (EE) relative to gold standard. Commercially available wrist-worn devices adequately measured heart rate with median errors below 5% during cycling, but all devices poorly estimated energy expenditure with errors exceeding 20%.
View Full Paper
Ask AI
Bookmark
Share