↓ Skip to main content

Investigation of wearable health tracker version updates

Overview of attention for article published in BMJ Health & Care Informatics, October 2019
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (65th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
26 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
Investigation of wearable health tracker version updates
Published in
BMJ Health & Care Informatics, October 2019
DOI 10.1136/bmjhci-2019-100083
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sandra I Woolley, Tim Collins, James Mitchell, David Fredericks

Abstract

Wearable fitness trackers are increasingly used in healthcare applications; however, the frequent updating of these devices is at odds with traditional medical device practices. Our objective was to explore the nature and frequency of wearable tracker updates recorded in device changelogs, to reveal the chronology of updates and to estimate the intervals where algorithm updates could impact device validations. Updates for devices meeting selection criteria (that included their use in clinical trials) were independently labelled by four researchers according to simple function and specificity schema. Device manufacturers have diverse approaches to update reporting and changelog practice. Visual representations of device changelogs reveal the nature and chronology of device iterations. 13% of update items were unspecified and 32% possibly affected validations with as few as 5 days between updates that may affect validation. Manufacturers could aid researchers and health professionals by providing more informative device update changelogs.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 26 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 12%
Researcher 3 12%
Student > Master 3 12%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 2 8%
Student > Bachelor 1 4%
Other 3 12%
Unknown 11 42%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 5 19%
Engineering 2 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 4%
Social Sciences 1 4%
Other 3 12%
Unknown 13 50%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 18 December 2021.
All research outputs
#7,484,504
of 26,314,361 outputs
Outputs from BMJ Health & Care Informatics
#183
of 511 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#124,985
of 369,636 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMJ Health & Care Informatics
#7
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,314,361 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 511 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.3. 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 369,636 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 65% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 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 53% of its contemporaries.