Does the Fitbit Charge 4 accurately and reliably measure heart rate compared to a chest strap during various physical activities in healthy young adults?
Background: Wrist-worn photoplethysmography (PPG) sensors allow for continuous heart rate (HR) measurement without the inconveniences of wearing a chest belt. Although green light PPG technology reduces HR measurement motion artifacts, only a limited number of studies have investigated the reliability and accuracy of wearables in non-laboratory-controlled conditions with actual specific and various physical activity movements. Objective: The purpose of this study was to (1) assess the reliability and accuracy of the PPG-based HR sensor of the Fitbit Charge 4 (FC4) in ecological conditions and (2) quantify the potential variability caused by the nature of activities. Methods: We collected HR data from participants who performed badminton, tennis, orienteering running, running, cycling, and soccer while simultaneously wearing the FC4 and the Polar H10 chest belt (criterion sensor). Skin tone was assessed with the Fitzpatrick Skin Scale. Once data from the FC4 and criterion data were synchronized, accuracy and reliability analyses were performed, using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), Lin concordance correlation coefficients (CCCs), mean absolute percentage errors (MAPEs), and Bland-Altman tests. A linear univariate model was also used to evaluate the effect of skin tone on bias. All analyses were stratified by activity and pooled activity types (racket sports and running sports). Results: A total of 77.5 hours of HR recordings from 26 participants (age: mean 21.1, SD 5.8 years) were analyzed. The highest reliability was found for running sports, with ICCs and CCCs of 0.90 and 0.99 for running and 0.80 and 0.93 for orienteering running, respectively, whereas the ICCs and CCCs were 0.37 and 0.78, 0.42 and 0.88, 0.65 and 0.97, and 0.49 and 0.81 for badminton, tennis, cycling, and soccer, respectively. We found the highest accuracy for running (bias: 0.1 beats per minute bpm; MAPE 1.2%, SD 4.6%) and the lowest for badminton (bias: -16.5 bpm; MAPE 16.2%, SD 14.4%) and soccer (bias: -16.5 bpm; MAPE 17.5%, SD 20.8%). Limit of agreement (LOA) width and artifact rate followed the same trend. No effect of skin tone was observed on bias. Conclusions: LOA width, bias, and MAPE results found for racket sports and soccer suggest a high sensitivity to motion artifacts for activities that involve "sharp" and random arm movements. In this study, we did not measure arm motion, which limits our results. However, whereas individuals might benefit from using the FC4 for casual training in aerobic sports, we cannot recommend the use of the FC4 for specific purposes requiring high reliability and accuracy, such as research purposes.
Ceugniez et al. (Thu,) studied this question.