↓ Skip to main content

Accuracy of wearable physical activity trackers in people with Parkinson’s disease

Overview of attention for article published in Gait & Posture, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (51st percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (54th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
62 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
193 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Accuracy of wearable physical activity trackers in people with Parkinson’s disease
Published in
Gait & Posture, April 2018
DOI 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2018.04.034
Pubmed ID
Authors

Robyn M Lamont, Hannah L Daniel, Caitlyn L Payne, Sandra G Brauer

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to determine the accuracy of the Fitbit Charge HR™ and Garmin vívosmart® HR in measuring steps and reflecting intensity of activity in people with Parkinson's disease (PD). Thirty-three people with mild-moderate PD performed six, two-minute indoor walks at their self-selected walking pace, and at target cadences of 60, 80, 100, 120 and 140 beats/min. A 500 m outdoor walk with terrain challenges was also performed. Step count was recorded by the two wrist-worn activity trackers (Fitbit Charge HR™ and Garmin vívosmart® HR) and compared to an accelerometer (ActivPAL3™). Intensity was recorded by a portable breath-by-breath gas analyser (VO2), heart rate and Borg scale. Both commercial activity trackers had low error (<3%) and moderate to high consistency at self-selected pace both indoors and outdoors (ICC 0.88-0.97; p < 0.05) compared to the ActivPAL3™. The Garmin recorded low error (<5%) and high agreement (ICCs > 0.68; p < 0.001) for all target cadences ≥80steps/min. The Fitbit had higher error was less consistent for all target cadences ≥80steps/min. Cadence measured by the Fitbit and Garmin weakly reflected increases in heart rate (ICCs 0.27-0.28; p < 0.05), and did not reflect VO2 or Borg (ICCs 0.08-0.15, p > 0.05). The Garmin device was more accurate at reflecting step count across a broader range of walking cadences than the Fitbit, but neither strongly reflected intensity of activity. While not intended to replace research grade devices, these wrist-worn devices may be a clinically useful adjunct to exercise therapy to increase physical activity in people with PD.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 193 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 193 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 27 14%
Student > Master 27 14%
Student > Bachelor 25 13%
Researcher 16 8%
Other 11 6%
Other 42 22%
Unknown 45 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 27 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 23 12%
Sports and Recreations 20 10%
Engineering 14 7%
Neuroscience 13 7%
Other 36 19%
Unknown 60 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 June 2018.
All research outputs
#14,264,076
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Gait & Posture
#1,459
of 3,322 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#163,197
of 339,945 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Gait & Posture
#39
of 85 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,322 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 339,945 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 85 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.