Cargando…

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

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 test...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Leth, Soren, Hansen, John, Nielsen, Olav W., Dinesen, Birthe
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5298782/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28117736
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/s17010211
_version_ 1782505931263705088
author Leth, Soren
Hansen, John
Nielsen, Olav W.
Dinesen, Birthe
author_facet Leth, Soren
Hansen, John
Nielsen, Olav W.
Dinesen, Birthe
author_sort Leth, Soren
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5298782
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-52987822017-02-10 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 Sensors (Basel) Article 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. MDPI 2017-01-22 /pmc/articles/PMC5298782/ /pubmed/28117736 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/s17010211 Text en © 2017 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Leth, Soren
Hansen, John
Nielsen, Olav W.
Dinesen, Birthe
Evaluation of Commercial Self-Monitoring Devices for Clinical Purposes: Results from the Future Patient Trial, Phase I
title Evaluation of Commercial Self-Monitoring Devices for Clinical Purposes: Results from the Future Patient Trial, Phase I
title_full Evaluation of Commercial Self-Monitoring Devices for Clinical Purposes: Results from the Future Patient Trial, Phase I
title_fullStr Evaluation of Commercial Self-Monitoring Devices for Clinical Purposes: Results from the Future Patient Trial, Phase I
title_full_unstemmed Evaluation of Commercial Self-Monitoring Devices for Clinical Purposes: Results from the Future Patient Trial, Phase I
title_short Evaluation of Commercial Self-Monitoring Devices for Clinical Purposes: Results from the Future Patient Trial, Phase I
title_sort evaluation of commercial self-monitoring devices for clinical purposes: results from the future patient trial, phase i
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5298782/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28117736
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/s17010211
work_keys_str_mv AT lethsoren evaluationofcommercialselfmonitoringdevicesforclinicalpurposesresultsfromthefuturepatienttrialphasei
AT hansenjohn evaluationofcommercialselfmonitoringdevicesforclinicalpurposesresultsfromthefuturepatienttrialphasei
AT nielsenolavw evaluationofcommercialselfmonitoringdevicesforclinicalpurposesresultsfromthefuturepatienttrialphasei
AT dinesenbirthe evaluationofcommercialselfmonitoringdevicesforclinicalpurposesresultsfromthefuturepatienttrialphasei