AI Article Synopsis

  • The study investigates how accurately the Fitbit Charge 2 tracks steps, energy expenditure, and physical activity compared to the ActiGraph GT3X in everyday life.
  • The Fitbit Charge 2 reported significantly different values for steps and activity levels than the ActiGraph, showing both fixed and proportional biases based on placement (hip vs. wrist).
  • The findings suggest that substantial discrepancies exist between the two devices, indicating users should be cautious when relying on different trackers for activity monitoring.

Article Abstract

Background: Activity trackers such as the Fitbit Charge 2 enable users and researchers to monitor physical activity in daily life, which could be beneficial for changing behaviour. However, the accuracy of the Fitbit Charge 2 in a free-living environment is largely unknown.

Objective: To investigate the agreement between Fitbit Charge 2 and ActiGraph GT3X for the estimation of steps, energy expenditure, time in sedentary behaviour, and light and moderate-to-vigorous physical activity under free-living conditions, and further examine to what extent placing the ActiGraph on the wrist as opposed to the hip would affect the findings.

Methods: 41 adults (n = 10 males, n = 31 females) were asked to wear a Fitbit Charge 2 device and two ActiGraph GT3X devices (one on the hip and one on the wrist) for seven consecutive days and fill out a log of wear times. Agreement was assessed through Bland-Altman plots combined with multilevel analysis.

Results: The Fitbit measured 1,492 steps/day more than the hip-worn ActiGraph (limits of agreement [LoA] = -2,250; 5,234), while for sedentary time, it measured 25 min/day less (LoA = -137; 87). Both Bland-Altman plots showed fixed bias. For time in light physical activity, the Fitbit measured 59 min/day more (LoA = -52;169). For time in moderate-to-vigorous physical activity, the Fitbit measured 31 min/day less (LoA = -132; 71) and for activity energy expenditure it measured 408 kcal/day more than the hip-worn ActiGraph (LoA = -385; 1,200). For the two latter outputs, the plots indicated proportional bias. Similar or more pronounced discrepancies, mostly in opposite direction, appeared when comparing to the wrist-worn ActiGraph.

Conclusion: Moderate to substantial differences between devices were found for most outputs, which could be due to differences in algorithms. Caution should be taken if replacing one device with another and when comparing results.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7289355PMC
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0234426PLOS

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

physical activity
20
fitbit charge
20
actigraph gt3x
12
fitbit measured
12
measured min/day
12
min/day loa
12
sedentary behaviour
8
free-living environment
8
fitbit
8
charge actigraph
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!