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...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
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 |