Evidence Hub

Accuracy and Precision of Energy Expenditure, Heart Rate, and Steps Measured by Combined-Sensing Fitbits Against Reference Measures: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

G. Chevance, Natalie M. Golaszewski, Elizabeth Tipton, Eric B. Hekler, M. Buman, G. Welk, K. Patrick, J. Godino

JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 2021

117 participants · 71 citations

Abstract

Background Although it is widely recognized that physical activity is an important determinant of health, assessing this complex behavior is a considerable challenge. Objective The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to examine, quantify, and report the current state of evidence for the validity of energy expenditure, heart rate, and steps measured by recent combined-sensing Fitbits. Methods We conducted a systematic review and Bland-Altman meta-analysis of validation studies of combined-sensing Fitbits against reference measures of energy expenditure, heart rate, and steps. Results A total of 52 studies were included in the systematic review. Among the 52 studies, 41 (79%) were included in the meta-analysis, representing 203 individual comparisons between Fitbit devices and a criterion measure (ie, n=117, 57.6% for heart rate; n=49, 24.1% for energy expenditure; and n=37, 18.2% for steps). Overall, most authors of the included studies concluded that recent Fitbit models underestimate heart rate, energy expenditure, and steps compared with criterion measures. These independent conclusions aligned with the results of the pooled meta-analyses showing an average underestimation of −2.99 beats per minute (k comparison=74), −2.77 kcal per minute (k comparison=29), and −3.11 steps per minute (k comparison=19), respectively, of the Fitbit compared with the criterion measure (results obtained after removing the high risk of bias studies; population limit of…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 117 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free