Psychometric properties of the Zephyr bioharness device: a systematic review

Goris Nazari, Pavlos Bobos, Joy C MacDermid, Kathryn E Sinden, Julie Richardson, Ada Tang, Goris Nazari, Pavlos Bobos, Joy C MacDermid, Kathryn E Sinden, Julie Richardson, Ada Tang

Abstract

Background: Technological development and improvements in Wearable Physiological Monitoring devices, have facilitated the wireless and continuous field-based monitoring/capturing of physiologic measures in healthy, clinical or athletic populations. These devices have many applications for prevention and rehabilitation of musculoskeletal disorders, assuming reliable and valid data is collected. The purpose of this study was to appraise the quality and synthesize findings from published studies on psychometric properties of heart rate measurements taken with the Zephyr Bioharness device.

Methods: We searched the Embase, Medline, PsycInfo, PuMed and Google Scholar databases to identify articles. Articles were appraised for quality using a structured clinical measurement specific appraisal tool. Two raters evaluated the quality and conducted data extraction. We extracted data on the reliability (intra-class correlation coefficients and standard error of measurement) and validity measures (Pearson/Spearman's correlation coefficients) along with mean differences. Agreement parameters were summarised by the average biases and 95% limits of agreement.

Results: A total of ten studies were included: quality ratings ranged from 54 to 92%. The intra-class correlation coefficients reported ranged from 0.85-0.98. The construct validity coefficients compared against gold standard calibrations or other commercially used devices, ranged from 0.74-0.99 and 0.67-0.98 respectively. Zephyr Bioharness agreement error ranged from - 4.81 (under-estimation) to 3.00 (over-estimation) beats per minute, with varying 95% limits of agreement, when compared with gold standard measures.

Conclusion: Good to excellent quality evidence from ten studies suggested that the Zephyr Bioharness device can provide reliable and valid measurements of heart rate across multiple contexts, and that it displayed good agreements vs. gold standard comparators - supporting criterion validity.

Keywords: Agreement; Heart rate; Psychometric properties; Quality evidence; Reliability; Validity; Wearable device; Zephyr bioharness.

Conflict of interest statement

Not Applicable.Not ApplicableThe authors declare that they have no competing interests.Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
The systematic review evidence flowchart

References

    1. Johnstone JA, Ford PA, Hughes G, Watson T, ACS M, Garrett AT. Field based reliability and validity of the bioharness™ multivariable monitoring device. J Sports Sci Med. 2012;11:643–652.
    1. Johnstone JA, Ford PA, Hughes G, Watson T, Garrett AT. Bioharness™ multivariable monitoring device: part II: reliability. J Sports Sci Med. 2012;11(3):409–417.
    1. Bianchi W, Freyer-Dugas A, Hsieh YH, Saheed M, Hill P, Lindauer C, Terzis A, Rothman RE. Revitalizing a vital sign: improving detection of Tachypnea at primary triage. Ann Emerg Med. 2013;61(1):37–43. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2012.05.030.
    1. Yang C, Hsu Y. A review of Accelerometry-based wearable motion detectors for physical activity monitoring. Sensors. 2010;10:7772–7788. doi: 10.3390/s100807772.
    1. Collier R, Randolph AB. Wearable Technologies for Healthcare Innovation. Hilton Head Island: Proceedings of the Southern Association for Information Systems Conference; 2015.
    1. Zephyr Technology. BioHarness 3.0 User ManualBioHarness 3.0 User Manual. Retrieved from 2012. . Accessed Feb 2018.
    1. Borresen J, Lambert MI. Quantifying training load: a comparison of subjective and objective methods. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2008;3:16–30. doi: 10.1123/ijspp.3.1.16.
    1. Buchheit M, Simpson MB, Al Haddad H, Bourdon PC, Mendez-Villanueva A. Monitoring changes in physical performance with heart rate measures in young soccer players. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2012;112:711–723. doi: 10.1007/s00421-011-2014-0.
    1. Hopkins WG. Quantification of training in competitive sports. Methods and applications. Sports Med. 1991;12:161–183. doi: 10.2165/00007256-199112030-00003.
    1. Astrand PO, Ryhming I. Nomogram for calculations of aerobic capacity from pulse rate during submaximal work. J Appl Physiol. 1954;7:218. doi: 10.1152/jappl.1954.7.2.218.
    1. Daanen HAM, Lamberts RP, Kallen VL, Jin A, Van Meeteren NLU. A systematic review on heart-rate recovery to monitor changes in training status in athletes. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2012;7:251–260. doi: 10.1123/ijspp.7.3.251.
    1. Brage S, Westgate K, Franks PW, Stegle O, Wright A, Ekelund U, Wareham NJ. Estimation of free-living energy expenditure by heart rate and movement sensing: a doubly-Labelled water study. PLoS One. 2015;10(9):e0137206. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0137206.
    1. Streiner DL, Norman GR. Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use. 2. New York: Oxford University Press; 1995.
    1. De Bruin AF, Diederiks JPM, De Witte LP, Stevens FCJ, Philipsen H. Assessing the responsiveness of a functional status measure: the sickness impact profile versus the SIP68. J Clin Epidemiol. 1997;50(5):529–540. doi: 10.1016/S0895-4356(97)00047-4.
    1. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986;327(8476):307–310. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(86)90837-8.
    1. MacDermid JC. Critical appraisal of study quality for psychometric articles, evaluation form. In: Law M, MacDermid JC, editors. Evidence-based rehabilitation. Thorofare: Slack Inc; 2008. pp. 387–388.
    1. MacDermid JC. Critical appraisal of study quality for psychometric articles, interpretation guide. In: Law M, MacDermid JC, editors. EvidenceBased rehabilitation. Thorofare: Slack Inc; 2008. pp. 389–392.
    1. Roy JS, Desmeules F, MacDermid JC. Psychometric properties of presenteeism scales for musculoskeletal disorders: a systematic review. J Rehabil Med. 2011;43(1):23–31(9). doi: 10.2340/16501977-0643.
    1. Rosner B. Fundamentals of biostatistics. 6. Boston: Duxbury Press; 2005.
    1. Evans JD. Straightforward statistics for the behavioral sciences. Pacific Grove: Brooks/Cole Publishing; 1996.
    1. Bunce C. Correlation, agreement, and bland–Altman analysis: statistical analysis of method comparison studies. Am J Ophthalmol. 2009;148(1):4–6. doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2008.09.032.
    1. Rawstorn JC, Gant N, Warren I, Doughty RN, Lever N, Poppe KK, Maddison R. Measurement and data transmission: validity of a multi-biosensor system for real-time remote exercise monitoring among cardiac patients. JMIR Rehabil Assist Technol. 2015;2(1):e2.
    1. Nazari G, MacDermid JC, Kathryn SE, Richardson J, Tang A. Reliability of Zephyr bioharness and Fitbit charge measures of heart rate and activity at rest, during the modified Canadian aerobic fitness test and recovery. J Strength Cond Res. 2017; 10.1519/JSC.0000000000001842.
    1. Johnstone JA, Ford PA, Hughes G, Watson T, Garrett AT. BioharnessTM multivariable monitoring device: part I: validity. J Sports Sci Med. 2012;11(3):400–408.
    1. Kim JH, Roberge R, Powell JB, Shafer AB, Williams WJ. Measurement accuracy of heart rate and respiratory rate during graded exercise and sustained exercise in the heat using the Zephyr bioharness TM. Int J Sports Med. 2013;34:497–501.
    1. Gatti UC, Schneider S, Migliaccio GC. Physiological condition monitoring of construction workers. Autom Constr. 2014;44:227–233. doi: 10.1016/j.autcon.2014.04.013.
    1. Flanagan SD, Comstock BA, Dupont WH, Sterczala AR, Looney DP, Dombrowski DH, et al. Concurrent validity of the armour39 heart rate monitor strap. J Strength Cond Res. 2014;28(3):870–873. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e3182a16d38.
    1. Dolezal BA, Boland DM, Carney J, Abrazado M, Smith DL, Cooper CB. Validation of heart rate derived from a physiological status monitor-embedded compression shirt against criterion ECG. J Occup Environ Hyg. 2014;11:833–839. doi: 10.1080/15459624.2014.925114.
    1. Smith DL, Haller JM, Dolezal BA, Cooper CB, Fehling PC. Evaluation of a wearable physiological status monitor during simulated fire fighting activities. J Occup Environ Hyg. 2014;11:427–433. doi: 10.1080/15459624.2013.875184.

Source: PubMed

赞助者和合作者

医疗条件

药物干预

3
订阅