Next Article in Journal
A Low Frequency FBG Accelerometer with Symmetrical Bended Spring Plates
Next Article in Special Issue
Preliminary Study for Designing a Novel Vein-Visualizing Device
Previous Article in Journal
Competitive Swarm Optimizer Based Gateway Deployment Algorithm in Cyber-Physical Systems
Previous Article in Special Issue
A Comparison Study of Classifier Algorithms for Cross-Person Physical Activity Recognition
Open AccessArticle

Evaluation of Commercial Self-Monitoring Devices for Clinical Purposes: Results from the Future Patient Trial, Phase I

1
Laboratory of Welfare Technologies—Telehealth & Telerehabilitation, SMI, Department of Health Science and Technology, Aalborg University, Aalborg 9100, Denmark
2
Medical Informatics Group, Department of Health Science and Technology, Aalborg University, Aalborg 9100, Denmark
3
Department of Cardiology, Copenhagen University Hospital Bispebjerg, Copenhagen NV 2400, Denmark
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Academic Editors: Octavian Adrian Postolache, Alex Casson and Subhas Mukhopadhyay
Sensors 2017, 17(1), 211; https://doi.org/10.3390/s17010211
Received: 2 November 2016 / Revised: 16 January 2017 / Accepted: 17 January 2017 / Published: 22 January 2017
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sensing Technology for Healthcare System)
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. View Full-Text
Keywords: activity tracker; pulse; physical activity; gait; slow walking; step detection; heart rate activity tracker; pulse; physical activity; gait; slow walking; step detection; heart rate
Show Figures

Figure 1

MDPI and ACS Style

Leth, S.; Hansen, J.; Nielsen, O.W.; Dinesen, B. Evaluation of Commercial Self-Monitoring Devices for Clinical Purposes: Results from the Future Patient Trial, Phase I. Sensors 2017, 17, 211. https://doi.org/10.3390/s17010211

AMA Style

Leth S, Hansen J, Nielsen OW, Dinesen B. Evaluation of Commercial Self-Monitoring Devices for Clinical Purposes: Results from the Future Patient Trial, Phase I. Sensors. 2017; 17(1):211. https://doi.org/10.3390/s17010211

Chicago/Turabian Style

Leth, Soren; Hansen, John; Nielsen, Olav W.; Dinesen, Birthe. 2017. "Evaluation of Commercial Self-Monitoring Devices for Clinical Purposes: Results from the Future Patient Trial, Phase I" Sensors 17, no. 1: 211. https://doi.org/10.3390/s17010211

Find Other Styles
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Search more from Scilit
 
Search
Back to TopTop