What is the clinical evidence from this study?

Study design: Observational. Population: Healthy volunteers (n=20). Intervention: MobileAction Q-Band Q-69 smart wristband vs. Zephyr BioHarness chest strap. Primary outcome: Mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) of heart rate monitoring.

What question did this study set out to answer?

This research evaluates the accuracy of heart rate monitoring using smart wristbands compared to standard devices during exercise.

December 14, 2023Open Access

Assessment of Heart Rate Monitoring During Exercise With Smart Wristbands and a Heart Rhythm Patch: Validation and Comparison Study

Key Result

The MobileAction Q-Band Q-69 smart wristband showed reduced heart rate accuracy during running, with a mean absolute percentage error of 13.35% for women and 8.54% for men compared to a chest strap.

Key Points

This research evaluates the accuracy of heart rate monitoring using smart wristbands compared to standard devices during exercise.
Data on heart rate and acceleration were collected using Q-Band Q-69 wristband and Zephyr Bioharness device.
Various statistical analyses, including Lin concordance and Pearson correlation coefficients, were conducted for reliability analysis.
Participants from a Northern Taiwanese medical school were enrolled from January to June 2021.
The Q-Band Q-69 wristband exhibited a mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) of 13.35 for women and 8.54 for men.
The accuracy of the wristband remained below 10% MAPE during most activities, with significant gender-based differences: 0.625 for women and 0.808 for men in Pearson correlation.
Notable inaccuracies were found during running activities, with some extreme error rates.

Study Design

Type

Observational (n=20)

Multicenter

Structured PICO

Does the MobileAction Q-Band Q-69 smart wristband accurately and reliably measure heart rate compared to the Zephyr BioHarness during exercise in healthy adults?

Population

20 healthy adults (10 women, 10 men) recruited from a medical school in Northern Taiwan, selected from 154 initial participants based on high-quality baseline device data.

Intervention

MobileAction Q-Band Q-69 smart wristband (PPG-based) connected to an Android phone via Bluetooth.

Comparator

Zephyr BioHarness 3.0 BioPatch (ECG-based chest strap) connected to Ambu BlueSensor T ECG patches.

Outcome

Accuracy and reliability of heart rate measurements assessed via mean absolute percentage error (MAPE), mean absolute error (MAE), Lin concordance correlation coefficient (CCC), Pearson product moment correlation coefficient (PPMCC), intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), and Bland-Altman analysis during walking, running, and cooldown phases.surrogate

The MobileAction Q-Band Q-69 smart wristband exhibits significant gender and activity-dependent variations in heart rate measurement accuracy, with reduced reliability during high-intensity activities like running.

Limitations

Exclusive comparison of the smart wristband with a single standard device.
Small final sample size of 20 participants due to a high exclusion rate from unreliable device data.
Lack of comparison with other commercially available smart wristbands.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The integration of wearable devices into fitness routines, particularly in military settings, necessitates a rigorous assessment of their accuracy. This study evaluates the precision of heart rate measurements by locally manufactured wristbands, increasingly used in military academies, to inform future device selection for military training activities. OBJECTIVE: This research aims to assess the reliability of heart rate monitoring in chest straps versus wearable wristbands. METHODS: Data on heart rate and acceleration were collected using the Q-Band Q-69 smart wristband (Mobile Action Technology Inc) and compared against the Zephyr Bioharness standard measuring device. The Lin concordance correlation coefficient, Pearson product moment correlation coefficient, and intraclass correlation coefficient were used for reliability analysis. RESULTS: Participants from a Northern Taiwanese medical school were enrolled (January 1-June 31, 2021). The Q-Band Q-69 demonstrated that the mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) of women was observed to be 13.35 (SD 13.47). Comparatively, men exhibited a lower MAPE of 8.54 (SD 10.49). The walking state MAPE was 7.79 for women and 10.65 for men. The wristband's accuracy generally remained below 10% MAPE in other activities. Pearson product moment correlation coefficient analysis indicated gender-based performance differences, with overall coefficients of 0.625 for women and 0.808 for men, varying across walking, running, and cooldown phases. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights significant gender and activity-dependent variations in the accuracy of the MobileAction Q-Band Q-69 smart wristband. Reduced accuracy was notably observed during running. Occasional extreme errors point to the necessity of caution in relying on such devices for exercise monitoring. The findings emphasize the limitations and potential inaccuracies of wearable technology, especially in high-intensity physical activities.

Mark Helpful

Bookmark

Relay

View Full Paper