Assessment of 24-hour physical behaviour in adults via wearables: a systematic review of validation studies under laboratory conditions.
Adults
Physical activity
Sedentary behavior
Sleep
Validation
Wearables
Journal
The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity
ISSN: 1479-5868
Titre abrégé: Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101217089
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
08 06 2023
08 06 2023
Historique:
received:
14
01
2023
accepted:
31
05
2023
medline:
12
6
2023
pubmed:
9
6
2023
entrez:
8
6
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Wearable technology is used by consumers and researchers worldwide for continuous activity monitoring in daily life. Results of high-quality laboratory-based validation studies enable us to make a guided decision on which study to rely on and which device to use. However, reviews in adults that focus on the quality of existing laboratory studies are missing. We conducted a systematic review of wearable validation studies with adults. Eligibility criteria were: (i) study under laboratory conditions with humans (age ≥ 18 years); (ii) validated device outcome must belong to one dimension of the 24-hour physical behavior construct (i.e., intensity, posture/activity type, and biological state); (iii) study protocol must include a criterion measure; (iv) study had to be published in a peer-reviewed English language journal. Studies were identified via a systematic search in five electronic databases as well as back- and forward citation searches. The risk of bias was assessed based on the QUADAS-2 tool with eight signaling questions. Out of 13,285 unique search results, 545 published articles between 1994 and 2022 were included. Most studies (73.8% (N = 420)) validated an intensity measure outcome such as energy expenditure; only 14% (N = 80) and 12.2% (N = 70) of studies validated biological state or posture/activity type outcomes, respectively. Most protocols validated wearables in healthy adults between 18 and 65 years. Most wearables were only validated once. Further, we identified six wearables (i.e., ActiGraph GT3X+, ActiGraph GT9X, Apple Watch 2, Axivity AX3, Fitbit Charge 2, Fitbit, and GENEActiv) that had been used to validate outcomes from all three dimensions, but none of them were consistently ranked with moderate to high validity. Risk of bias assessment resulted in 4.4% (N = 24) of all studies being classified as "low risk", while 16.5% (N = 90) were classified as "some concerns" and 79.1% (N = 431) as "high risk". Laboratory validation studies of wearables assessing physical behaviour in adults are characterized by low methodological quality, large variability in design, and a focus on intensity. Future research should more strongly aim at all components of the 24-hour physical behaviour construct, and strive for standardized protocols embedded in a validation framework.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Wearable technology is used by consumers and researchers worldwide for continuous activity monitoring in daily life. Results of high-quality laboratory-based validation studies enable us to make a guided decision on which study to rely on and which device to use. However, reviews in adults that focus on the quality of existing laboratory studies are missing.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review of wearable validation studies with adults. Eligibility criteria were: (i) study under laboratory conditions with humans (age ≥ 18 years); (ii) validated device outcome must belong to one dimension of the 24-hour physical behavior construct (i.e., intensity, posture/activity type, and biological state); (iii) study protocol must include a criterion measure; (iv) study had to be published in a peer-reviewed English language journal. Studies were identified via a systematic search in five electronic databases as well as back- and forward citation searches. The risk of bias was assessed based on the QUADAS-2 tool with eight signaling questions.
RESULTS
Out of 13,285 unique search results, 545 published articles between 1994 and 2022 were included. Most studies (73.8% (N = 420)) validated an intensity measure outcome such as energy expenditure; only 14% (N = 80) and 12.2% (N = 70) of studies validated biological state or posture/activity type outcomes, respectively. Most protocols validated wearables in healthy adults between 18 and 65 years. Most wearables were only validated once. Further, we identified six wearables (i.e., ActiGraph GT3X+, ActiGraph GT9X, Apple Watch 2, Axivity AX3, Fitbit Charge 2, Fitbit, and GENEActiv) that had been used to validate outcomes from all three dimensions, but none of them were consistently ranked with moderate to high validity. Risk of bias assessment resulted in 4.4% (N = 24) of all studies being classified as "low risk", while 16.5% (N = 90) were classified as "some concerns" and 79.1% (N = 431) as "high risk".
CONCLUSION
Laboratory validation studies of wearables assessing physical behaviour in adults are characterized by low methodological quality, large variability in design, and a focus on intensity. Future research should more strongly aim at all components of the 24-hour physical behaviour construct, and strive for standardized protocols embedded in a validation framework.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37291598
doi: 10.1186/s12966-023-01473-7
pii: 10.1186/s12966-023-01473-7
pmc: PMC10249261
doi:
Types de publication
Systematic Review
Journal Article
Review
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
68Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
Physiol Meas. 2014 Nov;35(11):2191-203
pubmed: 25340969
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2012 Jan;44(1 Suppl 1):S32-8
pubmed: 22157772
Physiol Meas. 2022 Sep 05;43(9):
pubmed: 35970174
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2013 May;45(5):964-75
pubmed: 23247702
Syst Rev. 2021 Mar 29;10(1):89
pubmed: 33781348
Exerc Sport Sci Rev. 2019 Oct;47(4):206-214
pubmed: 31524786
Gait Posture. 2019 Feb;68:285-299
pubmed: 30579037
J Phys Act Health. 2020 Jul 11;:1-13
pubmed: 32652514
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2005 Nov;37(11 Suppl):S490-500
pubmed: 16294112
Sleep Med Rev. 2018 Aug;40:151-159
pubmed: 29395985
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2018 Sep 05;6(9):e10706
pubmed: 30185406
PLoS One. 2011;6(7):e22922
pubmed: 21829556
Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2008 Nov 06;5:56
pubmed: 18990237
Healthc Inform Res. 2015 Oct;21(4):315-20
pubmed: 26618039
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2007 Jun 15;7:16
pubmed: 17573961
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2018 Aug 09;6(8):e10527
pubmed: 30093371
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2019 Aug;51(8):1767-1780
pubmed: 30913159
J Sports Sci. 2022 Nov;40(21):2393-2400
pubmed: 36576125
Ann Intern Med. 2011 Oct 18;155(8):529-36
pubmed: 22007046
Br J Sports Med. 2020 Dec;54(24):1468-1473
pubmed: 33239352
Psychol Sport Exerc. 2020 Sep;50:
pubmed: 32831643
Br J Sports Med. 2021 Jul;55(14):780-793
pubmed: 33361276
PLoS One. 2019 Oct 11;14(10):e0223832
pubmed: 31603953
Physiol Meas. 2015 Nov;36(11):2335-51
pubmed: 26449155
Sleep Health. 2015 Dec;1(4):275-284
pubmed: 29073403
NPJ Digit Med. 2019 Jul 22;2:72
pubmed: 31341957
Behav Sleep Med. 2015;13 Suppl 1:S4-S38
pubmed: 26273913
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2019 Mar;51(3):454-464
pubmed: 30339658
Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2020 Mar 18;17(1):28
pubmed: 32183807
Br J Sports Med. 2014 Jul;48(13):1019-23
pubmed: 24782483
Br J Sports Med. 2020 Apr;54(8):435-437
pubmed: 31076396
Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2015 Dec 18;12:159
pubmed: 26684758
Nat Med. 2021 Jun;27(6):1105-1112
pubmed: 34031607
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2020 Sep 8;8(9):e18694
pubmed: 32897239
Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2018 Jul;28(7):1818-1827
pubmed: 29460319
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2013 Oct;45(10):2012-9
pubmed: 23584403
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2011 Feb;43(2):357-64
pubmed: 20581716
J Sports Sci. 2021 Jul;39(13):1489-1496
pubmed: 33514289
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2022 Jun 9;10(6):e36377
pubmed: 35679106
BMJ Open Sport Exerc Med. 2020 Dec 24;6(1):e000874
pubmed: 33408875
Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2021 Nov 4;18(1):141
pubmed: 34732219
BMJ Open Sport Exerc Med. 2022 May 12;8(2):e001267
pubmed: 35646389
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2012 Jan;44(1 Suppl 1):S61-7
pubmed: 22157776
Br J Sports Med. 2022 Apr;56(7):367-368
pubmed: 34556466
Br J Sports Med. 2017 Aug;51(16):1240
pubmed: 27986762
Sleep Med. 2014 Sep;15(9):1107-14
pubmed: 25018025
Front Physiol. 2018 Jun 28;9:743
pubmed: 30002629