» Articles » PMID: 28234953

Comparison of Wrist-worn Fitbit Flex and Waist-worn ActiGraph for Measuring Steps in Free-living Adults

Overview
Journal PLoS One
Date 2017 Feb 25
PMID 28234953
Citations 58
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Introduction: Accelerometers are commonly used to assess physical activity. Consumer activity trackers have become increasingly popular today, such as the Fitbit. This study aimed to compare the average number of steps per day using the wrist-worn Fitbit Flex and waist-worn ActiGraph (wGT3X-BT) in free-living conditions.

Methods: 104 adult participants (n = 35 males; n = 69 females) were asked to wear a Fitbit Flex and an ActiGraph concurrently for 7 days. Daily step counts were used to classify inactive (<10,000 steps) and active (≥10,000 steps) days, which is one of the commonly used physical activity guidelines to maintain health. Proportion of agreement between physical activity categorizations from ActiGraph and Fitbit Flex was assessed. Statistical analyses included Spearman's rho, intraclass correlation (ICC), median absolute percentage error (MAPE), Kappa statistics, and Bland-Altman plots. Analyses were performed among all participants, by each step-defined daily physical activity category and gender.

Results: The median average steps/day recorded by Fitbit Flex and ActiGraph were 10193 and 8812, respectively. Strong positive correlations and agreement were found for all participants, both genders, as well as daily physical activity categories (Spearman's rho: 0.76-0.91; ICC: 0.73-0.87). The MAPE was: 15.5% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 5.8-28.1%) for overall steps, 16.9% (6.8-30.3%) vs. 15.1% (4.5-27.3%) in males and females, and 20.4% (8.7-35.9%) vs. 9.6% (1.0-18.4%) during inactive days and active days. Bland-Altman plot indicated a median overestimation of 1300 steps/day by the Fitbit Flex in all participants. Fitbit Flex and ActiGraph respectively classified 51.5% and 37.5% of the days as active (Kappa: 0.66).

Conclusions: There were high correlations and agreement in steps between Fitbit Flex and ActiGraph. However, findings suggested discrepancies in steps between devices. This imposed a challenge that needs to be considered when using Fibit Flex in research and health promotion programs.

Citing Articles

Accuracy and reliability of accelerometer-based pedometers in step counts during walking, running, and stair climbing in different locations of attachment.

Pan J, Wei S Sci Rep. 2024; 14(1):27761.

PMID: 39532924 PMC: 11557569. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-024-78684-w.


Fitbit's accuracy to measure short bouts of stepping and sedentary behaviour: validation, sensitivity and specificity study.

Delobelle J, Lebuf E, Van Dyck D, Compernolle S, Janek M, De Backere F Digit Health. 2024; 10:20552076241262710.

PMID: 38894943 PMC: 11185038. DOI: 10.1177/20552076241262710.


An Algorithm to Classify Real-World Ambulatory Status From a Wearable Device Using Multimodal and Demographically Diverse Data: Validation Study.

Popham S, Burq M, Rainaldi E, Shin S, Dunn J, Kapur R JMIR Biomed Eng. 2024; 8:e43726.

PMID: 38875664 PMC: 11041455. DOI: 10.2196/43726.


Volumetric computed tomography with carbon nanotube X-ray source array for improved image quality and accuracy.

Xu S, Hu Y, Li B, Inscoe C, Tyndall D, Lee Y Commun Eng. 2024; 2(1).

PMID: 38549919 PMC: 10955816. DOI: 10.1038/s44172-023-00123-x.


Comparison of daily step count between the Fitbit Inspire 3 and the activPAL 3 in adults with transtibial amputation.

Leister K, Burke S, Kim J, Duenas V, Barreira T Front Rehabil Sci. 2024; 5:1331005.

PMID: 38384680 PMC: 10879581. DOI: 10.3389/fresc.2024.1331005.


References
1.
Evenson K, Goto M, Furberg R . Systematic review of the validity and reliability of consumer-wearable activity trackers. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2015; 12:159. PMC: 4683756. DOI: 10.1186/s12966-015-0314-1. View

2.
Tudor-Locke C, Barreira T, Schuna Jr J, Mire E, Chaput J, Fogelholm M . Improving wear time compliance with a 24-hour waist-worn accelerometer protocol in the International Study of Childhood Obesity, Lifestyle and the Environment (ISCOLE). Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2015; 12:11. PMC: 4328595. DOI: 10.1186/s12966-015-0172-x. View

3.
Storm F, Heller B, Mazza C . Step detection and activity recognition accuracy of seven physical activity monitors. PLoS One. 2015; 10(3):e0118723. PMC: 4366111. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0118723. View

4.
Freedson P, Bowles H, Troiano R, Haskell W . Assessment of physical activity using wearable monitors: recommendations for monitor calibration and use in the field. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2011; 44(1 Suppl 1):S1-4. PMC: 3245520. DOI: 10.1249/MSS.0b013e3182399b7e. View

5.
Tudor-Locke C, Ham S . Walking behaviors reported in the American Time Use Survey 2003-2005. J Phys Act Health. 2008; 5(5):633-47. DOI: 10.1123/jpah.5.5.633. View