Comparison of Physical Activity Measures Derived From the Fitbit Flex and the ActiGraph GT3X+ in an Employee Population With Chronic Knee Symptoms

Pamela Semanik, Jungwha Lee, Christine A Pellegrini, Jing Song, Dorothy D Dunlop, Rowland W Chang, Pamela Semanik, Jungwha Lee, Christine A Pellegrini, Jing Song, Dorothy D Dunlop, Rowland W Chang

Abstract

Objective: We examined the accuracy of data from an affordable personal monitor (Fitbit Flex) compared with that of data from a research-grade accelerometer worn simultaneously for 7 days; high accuracy would support substitution with this less-expensive personal activity monitor in future community-based arthritis research.

Methods: Subjects (N = 35) with chronic knee symptoms were recruited for a pilot intervention study using Fitbits to increase physical activity in employees with chronic knee symptoms at an urban corporation. Subjects simultaneously wore for 7 days a Fitbit Flex (wrist-worn) and ActiGraph GT3X+ (waist-worn). Fitbit Flex data were regularly stored on a research storage service (Fitabase) by participants. Bland-Altman plots were constructed to examine the agreement between the mean daily times spent in light activity and in bouted moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA). Comparisons were calculated by matching Fitabase data from calendar days the Fitbit was worn with data from valid monitoring days (greater than or equal to 10 hours wear time) of the ActiGraph.

Results: Participants at baseline were mostly female (69%) and white (57%) and had a mean age of 52 years and body mass index of 32 kg/m2 . Bland-Altman analyses indicated systematic bias overall (the Fitbit overestimated both light-intensity activity and MVPA compared with the ActiGraph). The average error varied in magnitude and direction with changing activity amounts.

Conclusion: The Fitbit Flex does not appear to be an adequate substitute for research-grade accelerometry (which represents the gold standard for objective research monitoring of all physical activity intensity levels) in this population of persons with chronic knee symptoms.

© 2019 The Authors. ACR Open Rheumatology published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American College of Rheumatology.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Bland–Altman plot of Fitbit versus ActiGraph daily light‐intensity physical activity from N = 35 participants.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Bland–Altman plot of Fitbit versus ActiGraph daily bouted moderate‐to‐vigorous physical activity (MVPA) from N = 35 participants.

References

    1. Dunlop DD, Song J, Semanik PA, Chang RW, Sharma L, Bathon JM, et al. Objective physical activity measurement in the osteoarthritis initiative: are guidelines being met? [Original Data Report]. Arthritis Rheum 2011;63:3372–82.
    1. Sushames A, Edwards A, Thompson F, McDermott R, Gebel K. Validity and reliability of Fitbit Flex for step count, moderate to vigorous physical activity and activity energy expenditure. PLoS One 2016;11:e0161224.
    1. Dominick GM, Winfree KN, Pohlig RT, Papas MA. Physical activity assessment between consumer‐ and research‐grade accelerometers: a comparative study in free‐living conditions. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2016;4:e110.
    1. Alharbi M, Bauman A, Neubeck L, Gallagher R. Validation of Fitbit‐Flex as a measure of free‐living physical activity in a community‐based phase III cardiac rehabilitation population. Eur J Prev Cardiol 2016;23:1476–85.
    1. Singh AK, Farmer C, van den Berg ML, Killington M, Barr CJ. Accuracy of the FitBit at walking speeds and cadences relevant to clinical rehabilitation populations. Disabil Health J 2016;9:320–3.
    1. Farrokhi S, O'Connell M, Fitzgerald GK. Altered gait biomechanics and increased knee‐specific impairments in patients with coexisting tibiofemoral and patellofemoral osteoarthritis. Gait Posture 2015;41:81–5.
    1. Boyer KA, Hafer JF. Gait mechanics contribute to exercise induced pain flares in knee osteoarthritis. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2019;20:107.
    1. Troiano RP, Berrigan D, Dodd KW, Masse LC, Tilert T, McDowell M. Physical activity in the United States measured by accelerometer. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2008;40:181–8.
    1. Fitbit Inc . What are active minutes? Updated April 25, 2019. URL: .
    1. Redenius N, Kim Y, Byun W. Concurrent validity of the Fitbit for assessing sedentary behavior and moderate‐to‐vigorous physical activity. BMC Med Res Methodol 2019;19:29.
    1. Evenson KR, Goto MM, Furberg RD. Systematic review of the validity and reliability of consumer‐wearable activity trackers. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2015;12:159.
    1. Feehan LM, Geldman J, Sayre EC, Park C, Ezzat AM, Yoo JY, et al. Accuracy of Fitbit devices: systematic review and narrative syntheses of quantitative data. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2018;6:e10527.
    1. Gomersall SR, Ng N, Burton NW, Pavey TG, Gilson ND, Brown WJ. Estimating physical activity and sedentary behavior in a free‐living context: a pragmatic comparison of consumer‐based activity trackers and ActiGraph accelerometry. J Med Internet Res 2016;18:e239.
    1. Chu AH, Ng SH, Paknezhad M, Gauterin A, Koh D, Brown MS, et al. Comparison of wrist‐worn Fitbit Flex and waist‐worn ActiGraph for measuring steps in free‐living adults. PLoS One 2017;12:e0172535.
    1. Imboden MT, Nelson MB, Kaminsky LA, Montoye AH. Comparison of four Fitbit and Jawbone activity monitors with a research‐grade ActiGraph accelerometer for estimating physical activity and energy expenditure. Br J Sports Med 2018;52:844–50.
    1. Chow JJ, Thom JM, Wewege MA, Ward RE, Parmenter BJ. Accuracy of step count measured by physical activity monitors: the effect of gait speed and anatomical placement site. Gait Posture 2017;57:199–203.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors et collaborateurs

Les conditions médicales

Interventions en matière de drogue

3
S'abonner