↓ Skip to main content

Validation of Fitbit Charge 2 Sleep and Heart Rate Estimates Against Polysomnographic Measures in Shift Workers: Naturalistic Study

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Medical Internet Research, October 2021
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
16 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
103 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.
Article details
Title
Validation of Fitbit Charge 2 Sleep and Heart Rate Estimates Against Polysomnographic Measures in Shift Workers: Naturalistic Study
Published in
Journal of Medical Internet Research, October 2021
DOI 10.2196/26476
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Multisensor fitness trackers offer the ability to longitudinally estimate sleep quality in a home environment with the potential to outperform traditional actigraphy. To benefit from these new tools for objectively assessing sleep for clinical and research purposes, multisensor wearable devices require careful validation against the gold standard of sleep polysomnography (PSG). Naturalistic studies favor validation. This study aims to validate the Fitbit Charge 2 against portable home PSG in a shift-work population composed of 59 first responder police officers and paramedics undergoing shift work. A reliable comparison between the two measurements was ensured through the data-driven alignment of a PSG and Fitbit time series that was recorded at night. Epoch-by-epoch analyses and Bland-Altman plots were used to assess sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, the Matthews correlation coefficient, bias, and limits of agreement. Sleep onset and offset, total sleep time, and the durations of rapid eye movement (REM) sleep and non-rapid-eye movement sleep stages N1+N2 and N3 displayed unbiased estimates with nonnegligible limits of agreement. In contrast, the proprietary Fitbit algorithm overestimated REM sleep latency by 29.4 minutes and wakefulness after sleep onset (WASO) by 37.1 minutes. Epoch-by-epoch analyses indicated better specificity than sensitivity, with higher accuracies for WASO (0.82) and REM sleep (0.86) than those for N1+N2 (0.55) and N3 (0.78) sleep. Fitbit heart rate (HR) displayed a small underestimation of 0.9 beats per minute (bpm) and a limited capability to capture sudden HR changes because of the lower time resolution compared to that of PSG. The underestimation was smaller in N2, N3, and REM sleep (0.6-0.7 bpm) than in N1 sleep (1.2 bpm) and wakefulness (1.9 bpm), indicating a state-specific bias. Finally, Fitbit suggested a distribution of all sleep episode durations that was different from that derived from PSG and showed nonbiological discontinuities, indicating the potential limitations of the staging algorithm. We conclude that by following careful data processing processes, the Fitbit Charge 2 can provide reasonably accurate mean values of sleep and HR estimates in shift workers under naturalistic conditions. Nevertheless, the generally wide limits of agreement hamper the precision of quantifying individual sleep episodes. The value of this consumer-grade multisensor wearable in terms of tackling clinical and research questions could be enhanced with open-source algorithms, raw data access, and the ability to blind participants to their own sleep data.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 103 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 103 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 15%
Researcher 11 11%
Student > Bachelor 7 7%
Student > Postgraduate 6 6%
Student > Master 4 4%
Other 8 8%
Unknown 52 50%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 8 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 8%
Engineering 6 6%
Computer Science 5 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 4%
Other 15 15%
Unknown 57 55%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 13 July 2023.
All research outputs
#3,442,758
of 27,790,740 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Medical Internet Research
#2,649
of 8,861 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#68,918
of 444,683 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Medical Internet Research
#69
of 303 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 27,790,740 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,861 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% 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 444,683 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 303 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.