Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2022 Apr 13;10(4):e35626.
doi: 10.2196/35626.

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

Guillaume Chevance  1 , Natalie M Golaszewski  2   3 , Elizabeth Tipton  4 , Eric B Hekler  2   3   5 , Matthew Buman  6 , Gregory J Welk  7 , Kevin Patrick  3 , Job G Godino  2   3   5   8
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

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

Guillaume Chevance et al. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. .

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 agreements for heart rate, energy expenditure, and steps: -23.99 to 18.01, -12.75 to 7.41, and -13.07 to 6.86, respectively).

Conclusions: Fitbit devices are likely to underestimate heart rate, energy expenditure, and steps. The estimation of these measurements varied by the quality of the study, age of the participants, type of activities, and the model of Fitbit. The qualitative conclusions of most studies aligned with the results of the meta-analysis. Although the expected level of accuracy might vary from one context to another, this underestimation can be acceptable, on average, for steps and heart rate. However, the measurement of energy expenditure may be inaccurate for some research purposes.

Keywords: accelerometry; activity monitors; physical activity; validity; wearables.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: None declared.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Forest plots for the main and sensitivity analyses. EE: energy expenditure; HR: heart rate; LoA: limits of agreement.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Forest plots for the subgroup analyses. EE: energy expenditure; FB: Fitbit; HR: heart rate; LoA: limits of agreement; MVPA: moderate to vigorous physical activity.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Hallal PC, Bauman AE, Heath GW, Kohl 3rd HW, Lee IM, Pratt M. Physical activity: more of the same is not enough. Lancet. 2012;380(9838):190–1. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61027-7.S0140-6736(12)61027-7 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Lee I, Shiroma EJ, Lobelo F, Puska P, Blair SN, Katzmarzyk PT, Lancet Physical Activity Series Working Group Effect of physical inactivity on major non-communicable diseases worldwide: an analysis of burden of disease and life expectancy. Lancet. 2012;380(9838):219–29. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61031-9. http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/22818936 S0140-6736(12)61031-9 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Hallal PC, Andersen LB, Bull FC, Guthold R, Haskell W, Ekelund U, Lancet Physical Activity Series Working Group Global physical activity levels: surveillance progress, pitfalls, and prospects. Lancet. 2012;380(9838):247–57. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60646-1.S0140-6736(12)60646-1 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Wareham NJ, Rennie KL. The assessment of physical activity in individuals and populations: why try to be more precise about how physical activity is assessed? Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 1998;22 Suppl 2:S30–8. - PubMed
    1. Lynch J, Smith GD. A life course approach to chronic disease epidemiology. Annu Rev Public Health. 2005;26:1–35. doi: 10.1146/annurev.publhealth.26.021304.144505. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources