↓ Skip to main content

Validation of the Fitbit One® for physical activity measurement at an upper torso attachment site

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Research Notes, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (55th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (65th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
123 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
Validation of the Fitbit One® for physical activity measurement at an upper torso attachment site
Published in
BMC Research Notes, April 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13104-016-2020-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Keith M. Diaz, David J. Krupka, Melinda J. Chang, Jonathan A. Shaffer, Yao Ma, Jeff Goldsmith, Joseph E. Schwartz, Karina W. Davidson

Abstract

The upper torso is recommended as an attachment site for the Fitbit One(®), one of the most common wireless physical activity trackers in the consumer market, and could represent a viable alternative to wrist- and hip-attachment sites. The objective of this study was to provide evidence concerning the validity of the Fitbit One(®) attached to the upper torso for measuring step counts and energy expenditure among female adults. Thirteen female adults completed a four-phase treadmill exercise protocol (1.9, 3.0, 4.0, and 5.2 mph). Participants were fitted with three Fitbit(®) trackers (two Fitbit One(®) trackers: one on the upper torso, one on the hip; and a wrist-based Fitbit Flex(®)). Steps were assessed by manual counting of a video recording. Energy expenditure was measured by gas exchange indirect calorimetry. Concordance correlation coefficients of Fitbit-estimated step counts to observed step counts for the upper torso-attached Fitbit One(®), hip-attached Fitbit One(®) and wrist-attached Fitbit Flex(®) were 0.98 (95 % CI 0.97-0.99), 0.99 (95 % CI 0.99-0.99), and 0.75 (95 % CI 0.70-0.79), respectively. The percent error for step count estimates from the upper torso attachment site was ≤3 % for all walking and running speeds. Upper torso step count estimates showed similar accuracy relative to hip attachment of the Fitbit One(®) and were more accurate than the wrist-based Fitbit Flex(®). Similar results were obtained for energy expenditure estimates. Energy expenditure estimates for the upper torso attachment site yielded relative percent errors that ranged from 9 to 19 % and were more accurate than the wrist-based Fitbit Flex(®), but less accurate than hip attachment of the Fitbit One(®). Our study shows that physical activity measures obtained from the upper torso attachment site of the Fitbit One(®) are accurate across different walking and running speeds in female adults. The upper torso attachment site of the Fitbit One(®) outperformed the wrist-based Fitbit Flex(®) and yielded similar step count estimates to hip-attachment. These data support the upper torso as an alternative attachment site for the Fitbit One(®).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 123 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Unknown 120 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 21%
Student > Master 17 14%
Student > Bachelor 17 14%
Researcher 8 7%
Professor 7 6%
Other 22 18%
Unknown 26 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 19%
Sports and Recreations 20 16%
Psychology 12 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 8%
Computer Science 6 5%
Other 22 18%
Unknown 30 24%
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 13 April 2016.
All research outputs
#12,658,107
of 22,860,626 outputs
Outputs from BMC Research Notes
#1,480
of 4,267 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#133,345
of 300,876 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Research Notes
#36
of 103 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,860,626 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,267 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% 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 300,876 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 55% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 103 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 65% of its contemporaries.