Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Accuracy of smartwatches for the remote assessment of exercise capacity
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Accuracy of smartwatches for the remote assessment of exercise capacity
Do you wish to request the book?
Accuracy of smartwatches for the remote assessment of exercise capacity
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Accuracy of smartwatches for the remote assessment of exercise capacity
2024
Overview
Exercise capacity is a strong independent predictor of cardiovascular and all-cause mortality. The utilization of well-established submaximal tests of exercise capacity such as the 6-min walk test (6MWT), 3-min step test (3MST) and 10-chair rise test (10CRT) in the community would improve patient care but requires remote monitoring technology. Consumer grade smartwatches provide such an opportunity, however, their accuracy in measuring physiological responses to these tests is unclear. The aim of this study was to determine the accuracy of consumer grade smartwatches in assessing exercise capacity to develop a framework for remote, unsupervised testing. 16 healthy adults (7 male (44%), age median 27 [interquartile range (IQR) 26,29] years) performed 6MWTs using two protocols: (1) standard—straight 30 m laps (6MWT-standard) and 2) continuous lap—circular 240 m laps around a park (6MWT-continuous lap), 3MSTs and 10CRTs. Each one of these four tests was performed three times across two clinic visits. Each participant was fitted with a Garmin Vivoactive4 and Fitbit Sense smartwatch to measure three parameters: distance, step counts and heart rate (HR) response. Reference measures were a meter-wheel, hand tally counter and ECG, respectively. Mean HR was measured at rest, peak exercise and recovery. Agreement was measured using Bland–Altman analysis for repeated measures and summarized as median absolute percentage errors (MAPE). Distance during 6MWT-continuous lap had better agreement than during 6MWT-standard for both Garmin (MAPE: 6.4% [3.0, 10.4%] versus 20.1% [13.9, 28.4%],
p
< 0.001) and Fitbit (8.0% [2.9, 10.1% versus 18.8% [15.2, 28.1%],
p
< 0.001). Garmin measured step count more accurately than Fitbit (MAPE: 1.8% [0.9, 2.9%] versus 8.0% [2.6, 12.3%],
p
< 0.001). Irrespective of test, both devices showed excellent accuracy in measuring HR at rest and recovery (≤ 3%), while accuracy decreased during peak exercise (Fitbit: ~ 12% and Garmin: ~ 7%). In young adults without mobility difficulties, exercise capacity can be measured remotely using standardized tests and consumer grade smartwatches.
Publisher
Nature Publishing Group UK,Nature Publishing Group,Nature Portfolio
Subject
