Keeping Pace with Wearables: A Living Umbrella Review of Systematic Reviews Evaluating the Accuracy of Consumer Wearable Technologies in Health Measurement

Author:

Doherty CailbheORCID,Baldwin MaximusORCID,Keogh AlisonORCID,Caulfield BrianORCID,Argent RobORCID

Abstract

Abstract Background Consumer wearable technologies have become ubiquitous, with clinical and non-clinical populations leveraging a variety of devices to quantify various aspects of health and wellness. However, the accuracy with which these devices measure biometric outcomes such as heart rate, sleep and physical activity remains unclear. Objective To conduct a ‘living’ (i.e. ongoing) evaluation of the accuracy of consumer wearable technologies in measuring various physiological outcomes. Methods A systematic search of the literature was conducted in the following scientific databases: MEDLINE via PubMed, Embase, Cinahl and SPORTDiscus via EBSCO. The inclusion criteria required systematic reviews or meta-analyses that evaluated the validation of consumer wearable devices against accepted reference standards. In addition to publication details, review protocol, device specifics and a summary of the authors’ results, we extracted data on mean absolute percentage error (MAPE), pooled absolute bias, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and mean absolute differences. Results Of 904 identified studies through the initial search, 24 systematic reviews met our inclusion criteria; these systematic reviews included 249 non-duplicate validation studies of consumer wearable devices involving 430,465 participants (43% female). Of the commercially available wearable devices released to date, approximately 11% have been validated for at least one biometric outcome. However, because a typical device can measure a multitude of biometric outcomes, the number of validation studies conducted represents just 3.5% of the total needed for a comprehensive evaluation of these devices. For heart rate, wearables showed a mean bias of ± 3%. In arrhythmia detection, wearables exhibited a pooled sensitivity and specificity of 100% and 95%, respectively. For aerobic capacity, wearables significantly overestimated VO2max by ± 15.24% during resting tests and ± 9.83% during exercise tests. Physical activity intensity measurements had a mean absolute error ranging from 29 to 80%, depending on the intensity of the activity being undertaken. Wearables mostly underestimated step counts (mean absolute percentage errors ranging from − 9 to  12%) and energy expenditure (mean bias =  − 3 kcal per minute, or − 3%, with error ranging from − 21.27 to 14.76%). For blood oxygen saturation, wearables showed a mean absolute difference of up to 2.0%. Sleep measurement showed a tendency to overestimate total sleep time (mean absolute percentage error typically > 10%). Conclusions While consumer wearables show promise in health monitoring, a conclusive assessment of their accuracy is impeded by pervasive heterogeneity in research outcomes and methodologies. There is a need for standardised validation protocols and collaborative industry partnerships to enhance the reliability and practical applicability of wearable technology assessments. Prospero ID CRD42023402703.

Funder

Science Foundation Ireland

University College Dublin

Publisher

Springer Science and Business Media LLC

Reference68 articles.

1. Lupton D. The quantified self: a sociology of self-tracking. Sociol Health Illn. 2016;39:1557–71.

2. Piwek L, Ellis DA, Andrews S, Joinson A. The rise of consumer health wearables: promises and barriers. PLoS Med. 2016;13(2): e1001953.

3. GVR. Wearable technology market size, share & trends analysis report by product (head & eyewear, wristwear), by application (consumer electronics, healthcare), by region (Asia Pacific, Europe), And Segment Forecasts, 2023–2030: Grand View Research; 2023. Report No.: 978-1-68038-165-8.

4. ACSM. Wearable technology named top fitness trend for 2024. 2024 [cited; https://www.acsm.org/education-resources/trending-topics-resources/acsm-fitness-trends.

5. Carpenter A, Frontera A. Smart-watches: a potential challenger to the implantable loop recorder? Europace. 2016;18(6):791–3.

Cited by 1 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3