Evaluation of Commercial Self-Monitoring Devices for Clinical Purposes: Results from the Future Patient Trial, Phase I
Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review
Standard
Evaluation of Commercial Self-Monitoring Devices for Clinical Purposes : Results from the Future Patient Trial, Phase I. / Leth, Soren; Hansen, John; Nielsen, Olav W; Dinesen, Birthe.
In: Sensors, Vol. 17, No. 1, 211, 2017.Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review
Harvard
APA
Vancouver
Author
Bibtex
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
T1 - Evaluation of Commercial Self-Monitoring Devices for Clinical Purposes
T2 - Results from the Future Patient Trial, Phase I
AU - Leth, Soren
AU - Hansen, John
AU - Nielsen, Olav W
AU - Dinesen, Birthe
PY - 2017
Y1 - 2017
N2 - Commercial self-monitoring devices are becoming increasingly popular, and over the last decade, the use of self-monitoring technology has spread widely in both consumer and medical markets. The purpose of this study was to evaluate five commercially available self-monitoring devices for further testing in clinical applications. Four activity trackers and one sleep tracker were evaluated based on step count validity and heart rate validity.METHODS: The study enrolled 22 healthy volunteers in a walking test. Volunteers walked a 100 m track at 2 km/h and 3.5 km/h. Steps were measured by four activity trackers and compared to gyroscope readings. Two trackers were also tested on nine subjects by comparing pulse readings to Holter monitoring.RESULTS: The lowest average systematic error in the walking tests was -0.2%, recorded on the Garmin Vivofit 2 at 3.5 km/h; the highest error was the Fitbit Charge HR at 2 km/h with an error margin of 26.8%. Comparisons of pulse measurements from the Fitbit Charge HR revealed a margin error of -3.42% ± 7.99% compared to the electrocardiogram. The Beddit sleep tracker measured a systematic error of -3.27% ± 4.60%.CONCLUSION: The measured results revealed the current functionality and limitations of the five self-tracking devices, and point towards a need for future research in this area.
AB - Commercial self-monitoring devices are becoming increasingly popular, and over the last decade, the use of self-monitoring technology has spread widely in both consumer and medical markets. The purpose of this study was to evaluate five commercially available self-monitoring devices for further testing in clinical applications. Four activity trackers and one sleep tracker were evaluated based on step count validity and heart rate validity.METHODS: The study enrolled 22 healthy volunteers in a walking test. Volunteers walked a 100 m track at 2 km/h and 3.5 km/h. Steps were measured by four activity trackers and compared to gyroscope readings. Two trackers were also tested on nine subjects by comparing pulse readings to Holter monitoring.RESULTS: The lowest average systematic error in the walking tests was -0.2%, recorded on the Garmin Vivofit 2 at 3.5 km/h; the highest error was the Fitbit Charge HR at 2 km/h with an error margin of 26.8%. Comparisons of pulse measurements from the Fitbit Charge HR revealed a margin error of -3.42% ± 7.99% compared to the electrocardiogram. The Beddit sleep tracker measured a systematic error of -3.27% ± 4.60%.CONCLUSION: The measured results revealed the current functionality and limitations of the five self-tracking devices, and point towards a need for future research in this area.
KW - Journal Article
U2 - 10.3390/s17010211
DO - 10.3390/s17010211
M3 - Journal article
C2 - 28117736
VL - 17
JO - Sensors
JF - Sensors
SN - 1424-3210
IS - 1
M1 - 211
ER -
ID: 186776763